Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Official Aid

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what have been the proportions of tied and untied official aid expended since November, 1967.

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart): In 1968 about 58 per cent. of the bilateral financial aid spent on goods and services was tied. This represented about 39 per cent. of the total official aid disbursed.

Sir F. Bennett: Irrespective of any general results of devaluation on the effectiveness of British aid, is it true that devaluation has resulted in a net reduction of 15 per cent. in the available purchasing power of recipient countries of British non-tied aid spent elsewhere than in the United Kingdom, and how is this effect recorded in the official figures?

Mrs. Hart: It is not specifically recorded. Indeed, it is not a fact. Devaluation did not reduce the amount which could be bought here with our tied aid.

Sir F. Bennett: Non-tied aid.

Mrs. Hart: Nor did it reduce the value of our budgetary aid and local cost aid in those countries which devalued at the same time as did. Our multilateral aid, defined in dollar terms and untied, clearly did not diminish in value. There was some diminution in untied aid. I can write to the hon. Gentleman if he cares, but the figures are rather more complex than can be dealt with in a single Answer.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does my right hon. Friend agree, nevertheless, that tied aid adds a considerable cost to recipient countries?

Mrs. Hart: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend will be aware that the whole question of tying or untying aid is one of the points on which there will clearly be many international discussions in the context of the specific Pearson recommendation on the subject.

Indonesia

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what discussions she had with the Indonesian Foreign Minister on the question of the provision of coastal shipping and marine spare parts to Indonesia.

Mrs. Hart: This was not raised by the Indonesian Government, although our discussions covered several other matters of technical assistance and capital aid to Indonesia.

Mr. Dalyell: What other matters were discussed? Is it realised that the great Indonesian problem is perhaps help to the outer islands, and that this is perhaps the optimum form of aid that many people in Indonesia think that we could give?

Mrs. Hart: As my hon. Friend knows, it is a Government-to-Government matter, and we discuss with Governments what proposals they wish to make to us. This was not one of them. I discussed with Mr. Malik and later with Mr. Sumitro the whole of our technical assistance and capital aid programme, but this was not a specific matter raised by them.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Did the right hon. Lady discuss during those talks the question of the estimated £200 million of British assets which have been seized by Indonesia and for which no compensation has been paid?

Mrs. Hart: This was not a matter for me, so, quite correctly, it will no doubt be raised in discussions held with colleagues of mine.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Overseas Development in what ways she is facilitating co-operation between British and Indonesian universities.

Mrs. Hart: The initiative for establishing associations between universities rests with the universities themselves. I am not aware of any such association between British and Indonesian universities but can always consider requests from Governments for training for students and for help with exchange visits of staff.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the Department allocated any funds for such contacts?

Mrs. Hart: Not at present. We do not allocate funds in advance of requests for specific aid in particular matters.

Overseas Aid (Future Programme)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she has concluded her study of the Pearson Report on Overseas Aid; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what conclusions she has reached following her study of the Report of the Pearson Commission.

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Minister of Overseas Development, in view of the decision of the Federal German Government to endeavour to attain the aim envisaged in the Pearson Report, by increasing the public share in development aid by an annual rate of 11 per cent., if she will now make a statement on the Government's proposals for reaching the Pearson target for Government aid of 0.7 per cent. of our gross national product by 1975.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Overseas Development when she expects to make a statement on the level of the aid programme for 1971–72 and the two subsequent years.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Overseas Development by what stages Her Majesty's Government propose to increase net overseas aid so as to reach the target set by the Pearson Commission by 1975.

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what reply she has given to the Churches' Action for World Development representation that the United Kingdom achieve by 1972 the

target of one per cent. of the gross national product for overseas aid, with at least three-quarters allocated in the form of effective Government aid; and if she will now make a statement of Government policy in this matter.

Mrs. Hart: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the statement which I hope to make later today.

Aid (New Jobs)

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what was the total value of United Kingdom overseas aid, both official and private, in the past five fears together; and if she will estimate how many new jobs this created.

Mrs. Hart: Net official aid and private flows of resources in the years 1964 and 1968 together totalled £1, 667 million. I cannot estimate how many new jobs have been created in recipient countries as a result.

Mr. Pardoe: In view of the importance of the aid programme in creating new jobs, is it not time the Government made an investigation into its success in doing this?

Mrs. Hart: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the essential need to concentrate our aid to a considerable extent on creating employment, because of the great difficulty that as one has rural development one often creates rural unemployment. But many other factors affect this, and it is not possible to find a precise relationship between our aid and the number of jobs created. If other factors were not involved, I would be very happy to do the investigation that the hon. Gentleman would like.

Zanzibar Government Pensioners

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what Government assistance is offered to local pensioners of the Zanzibar Government, resident outside Zanzibar, whose pensions are in default.

Mrs. Hart: We have made, and continue to make representations to the Tanzanian Government on behalf of the pensioners concerned.

Mr. Allason: As the Tanzanian Government have not the slightest intention


of paying these pensions, are not our Government under at least a moral obligation to look after those who have served Colonial Governments extremely well in the past and who have now hit very hard times? Is not it dishonourable just to leave them like that?

Mrs. Hart: I think that to use the word "dishonourable" is going much too far. As the hon. Gentleman knows my predecessor had and I have a great deal of sympathy on this point. We have made very recent representations. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs did so to the authorities involved on 28th October. My difficulty is that I do not have any funds to help these local pensioners. It is a very difficult situation which I fully recognise. I wish I could help, but, frankly, I am not in a position to be able to do so at this moment.

Mr. Paget: The right hon. Lady tells us that to use the word "dishonourable" is to go too far. This is a default of obligation, and surely obligations of this sort should have a priority?

Mrs. Hart: I would totally resist that adjective applied to the British Government in this case. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Zanzibar Government."] That is a very different matter. I took the word to be used in a rather different context. Of course it is serious and a matter of very great anxiety that people who have served in a public capacity in any country should not be able to draw the pensions to which they are entitled.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there are former Zanzibar officers living in this country who are drawing public assistance? Does not she think that this is a very grave reflection on the Government, and will she look into this matter again and take action?

Mrs. Hart: Again, one gets the reflection on our Government. I am glad that we are able to substitute for a pension some assistance from our own funds for a former colonial servant who is now living in Britain. The difficulty is that those who are not living here cannot be helped in such a way. I wish this were not so.

Pakistan (Naval) Pensions

Mr. Roebuck: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what progress has been made with the representations made to the Pakistani Government about the extinguishment of the pensions of former Pakistani Navy officers consequent upon their becoming United Kingdom citizens.

Mrs. Hart: The matter is still under consideration by the Government of Pakistan, who are being pressed for an early reply.

Mr. Roebuck: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the full extent of the disappointment felt in this country at the attitude of the Government of Pakistan has been conveyed to them? Is she aware of the feeling here that such pensions are a form of deferred pay and that it is dishonest for the Pakistan Government to withhold this money? Will she represent that view to them with vigour?

Mrs. Hart: As my hon. Friend knows, there have been formal and informal representations made throughout the year by the British High Commission in Pakistan. The High Commissioner has himself taken up the matter only this week, and many of the points mentioned by my hon. Friend are being expressed to the Pakistan Government. Certainly the feeling which he has expressed has been conveyed to them.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: As one who, believe it or not, is a pensioner of the Pakistan Government, which I had the honour to serve, may I ask the right hon. Lady if she will vigorously take up this matter with the new High Commissioner and, if necessary, will she receive Members of this House interested in this matter if her representations to the new High Commissioner are not successful?

Mrs. Hart: As the hon. Gentleman recognises, the responsibility for conveying representations to the Pakistan Government has rested with our High Commissioner and with my colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but I am in close contact with them and, if it would be helpful at any point for me, as distinct from one of my colleagues there, to receive hon. Members, I shall be delighted to do so.

Mr. Roebuck: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

International Development Association

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will seek to initiate discussions on the next replenishment of the International Development Association.

Mrs. Hart: It is for Mr. McNamara, the President of the Association, to initiate such discussions rather than myself. He has recently visited London, and I understand that the first meeting on the subject between the I.D.A. and the potential contributors is likely to be held next month.

Mr. Hooley: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, may I ask if she is aware that, in the view of the Pearson Commission, the I.D.A has done a thoroughly efficient and valuable job in the dispersal of aid and it is a matter of urgency that concrete discussions should start this year or early in 1970?

Mrs. Hart: Yes indeed, and I am certain that Mr. McNamara will be taking fully into account the Pearson Commission recommendations as he now formulates his proposals for the form and size of the next replenishment. I am equally certain that there will be no delay in proceeding with this matter.

Population Policies

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what plans she has for increasing the aid given to the International Planned Parenthood Federation; and what other steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to assist in the solution of the problem of population growth in under-developed countries.

Mrs. Hart: I have been making a special study of aid to developing countries in evolving and applying their population policies, including support for the very important activities of multilateral agencies such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation. I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the British Government are giving £100,000 to the Federation and, if that is so, what proportion of the total is it? Does she agree that this is probably the most important problem of the under-developed areas and, unless we solve it, further aid would be like trying to go up a down escalator?

Mrs. Hart: My hon. Friend's figure is not quite right. My Ministry is at present making a grant of £50,000 a year to the Federation and this is to be continued for five years. We are now considering what further assistance we can give, and it is on this that I may be able to make a statement later. On my hon. Friend's second point, I would be very happy to send to him, if I may, a copy of the speech which I made two weeks ago at the meeting of the Food and Agriculture Organisation in Rome, in which I dealt very strongly with this matter.

Mr. Carter Jones: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Estimates Committee in looking at overseas aid was most concerned about the emphasis which her Ministry was laying on having its own organisation for this? The Estimates Committee felt that it would be better for this to be done by international co-operation rather than by a specialised national agency.

Mrs. Hart: This is very much in my mind in the study which I am making.

Tunisia (Flood Disaster)

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will make a statement on British aid to Tunisia following the recent flood disaster.

Mrs. Hart: Tunisia's economy has been severely disrupted by the unprecedented floods. Her Majesty's Government have already made an immediate gift of £10,000 for the first aid relief, and my Department is now urgently considering what further help of rehabilitation can be given. We hope to provide some immediately needed reconstruction equipment and also assistance for a radio-telephone link in central Tunisia.

Mr. Judd: Does my right hon. Friend agree, as she has perhaps suggested in her reply, that the most significant aspect


of the flooding disaster in Tunisia is its impact on the long-term development of the country, and does she understand that she will have every possible support for a sympathetic response from this country?

Mrs. Hart: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. I realise this, and it is in this direction that we would hope to make our further contribution.

Mr. Brewis: Does the right hon. Lady think that £10,000 is adequate, in view of the magnitude of the disaster—things like radio-telephones will not help very much?

Mrs. Hart: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman misunderstood my answer. I did not say that £10,000 was what we would give. I said that £10,000 was our immediate response for first aid relief. I am now considering what further help we can give and it is likely that this will be quite considerable.

Tanzania (Development Assistance)

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will make a statement on the future policy of her Department towards development assistance in Tanzania.

Mrs. Hart: I regret I have nothing to add to previous statements on this matter.

Mr. Judd: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, while there is genuine concern for the pensioners, there is great distress in the House that pensions for former colonial officers should ever have been regarded as aid and that a disagreement on this issue should have led to a break in economic relations with Tanzania? Will she assure the House that we will as soon as possible resume aid to Tanzania is one of the countries which is most deserving in terms of its emphasis on self-help?

Mrs. Hart: I am glad to hear and I welcome what my hon. Friend says. It will clearly be controversial when I now say that it is my personal hope that we can renew British aid to Tanzania as soon as we can resolve this pension question. I have a further Question on the Order Paper dealing with this. Studies are going on at the moment.

Mr. Farr: Is the Minister aware that we have in Zanzibar no diplomatic British representation? In these circumstances how is it possible to have any effective aid system in that country?

Mrs. Hart: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the difficulty is that we have our representation in a State, and in the case of Tanzania and Zanzibar our representation appropriately is in Tanzania. The situation is complex and it makes it difficult for us to convey effectively, although we have been making tremendous efforts, any concern we may have about purely Zanzibar matters as distinct from Tanzanian matters.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of Order. The Minister said that this was her personal view. Is it possible for a Minister at the Dispatch Box to give a personal view and not a Ministerial view?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Kenya (Land Resettlement Scheme)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement about the progress on the land resettlement, 400,000 acres, scheme in Kenya.

Mrs. Hart: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to his Question on 20th October. According to the latest information, it now seems that the total acreage to be transferred under the three current schemes, covering purchases for land settlement, purchases by the Agricultural Development Corporation, and purchases through the Agricultural Finance Corporation, may amount to 370,000 acres by March, 1970.—[Vol. 788, c. 147.]

Mr. Wall: Will the Minister give an undertaking that the fourth year of the scheme will be completed as planned? Will she say what the Government are prepared to do to help elderly British farmers who cannot continue much longer because of the pressure on land and the deteriorating security situation?

Mrs. Hart: Beyond March, 1970, when the current schemes come to an end, we hope to hold discussions with the Kenya Government. We do not expect those discussions to take place until after the forthcoming elections in Kenya.

Malta

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement on aid to Malta.

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what progress has been made in regard to the fulfilment of Great Britain's pledged aid programme to Malta.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will now make a statement about aid for Malta during the second five-year period of the aid programme.

Mrs. Hart: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to a Question by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) on 17th November to which as yet I still have nothing to add.—[Vol. 791. c. 205–6.]

Mr. Wall: Is it not disgraceful that, because of a dispute as to whether 25 per cent. of our aid should be in the form of grant or loan, all aid should be cut off as has occurred in regard to Malta? What plans have the Government to remedy this situation?

Mrs. Hart: It is well known to the House that we are engaged in discussions with the Government of Malta on this matter. We do not regard them as having ended. At the moment we are seeking clarification of some specific proposals which have been made. I regret, as much as the hon. Gentleman, that this is holding up our aid to Malta. What is comforting is that Malta's development plan has not been held up by the disagreement.

Sir F. Bennett: Could we get back to the facts of the situation? Will the Minister confirm that all we are arguing about is whether the sum of £5½ million should be a grant or loan repayable after a large number of years? Will she also take the opportunity to deny, rather than making a waffly statement, whether one of the matters in dispute is whether an additional sum of £4 million promised to Malta for dockyard rehabilitation under a quite different heading is being lumped together with the total sum agreed in 1964 or is to be a separate sum? Could we have two plain answers to those two plain questions?

Mrs. Hart: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. He is well aware that a full statement was made by the Malta Government in the Malta Parliament. Our view is that it would be unwise for us to make a similar statement in this House while we believe it is possible to reach a fruitful end to those discussions. I am sorry that I cannot give the specific answers for which the hon. Gentleman asks.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister tell the House how much longer these negotiations are to go on? If the Prime Minister thinks that a week is a long time in politics, then nine months is a very long time indeed. Will the Minister genuinely do her best to expedite a settlement on mutually agreeable terms with Malta, with which we have always had the closest and most friendly relations and to which we owe a great deal, especially in the last war?

Mrs. Hart: Indeed, I can completely assure the House that it is my desire and that I shall do everything within my power to reach a conclusion acceptable to the Malta Government and ourselves. There is no denying that it is a difficult matter, but we are in process of discussions and it is my hope and intention that the result will be satisfactory to both sides.

Mr. Wall: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I beg leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

British Honduras (New Capital)

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Minister of Overseas Development how much the United Kingdom has contributed to date to the building of the new capital of British Honduras; and how much is the estimated total commitment to its completion.

Mrs. Hart: £3,400,000 has so far been drawn. Further sums amounting to about £1½ million have been earmarked for this project.

Mr. Baker: The Minister will be aware of the gratitude of the people of British Honduras for the generous amount of aid. Has any thought been given to the level of aid available to British Honduras


when it becomes independent, which appears likely to occur next year?

Mrs., Hart: I myself have not yet had discussions with British Honduras on the point, but no doubt as independence draws nearer it will become a rather urgent matter on the agenda.

Latin America (Technical Assistance)

Mr. John Hynd: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what measures have been taken, or are being considered by Her Majesty's Government to establish a British association with the Organisation of American States' International Fund for technical assistance for the economic and social development of Latin America.

Mrs. Hart: Since 1965 my Department has undertaken each year two or three technical assistance projects in Latin America proposed by the Organisation of American States, and we accept O.A.S. nominees for training in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hynd: In view of the important potential of Latin America both politically and economically, and the fact that the proposal mentioned in the Question was put forward recently to the Foreign Secretary by the Latin American Secretary of the Organisation of American States, will the Minister take full note of the significance of this matter and discuss it further with her right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary?

Mrs., Hart: I will certainly take full note of it, but I am sure my hon. Friend will be the first to accept that there are difficulties of principle in making a cash contribution to an organisation of which we are not a member and in whose policies we therefore can have no say That is the real difficulty of the matter.

Agriculture

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Minister of Overseas Development how many requests she has received, and from which Governments, in the past two years, for agricultural technical advisers, machinery, seeds and fertilisers.

Mrs. Hart: Over the last two years 311 requests from nearly 70 countries

have been accepted for agricultural staff —including technical advisers. Commitments totalling £2·2 million have been made for agricultural production requisites and a further £2·8 million for processing, marketing and storage.

Mr. Baker: Would the Minister agree that this is a highly satisfactory state of affairs? Could she give an undertaking that such aid is in the best interests of the British taxpayer and of the recipients in the country to which the aid goes?

Mrs. Hart: I do not regard it as at all unsatisfactory. A few moments ago we were talking about bilateral aid, but we also make a very large contribution to the Food and Agricultural Organisation. Our multilateral aid is able to help a very great deal in the purposes in which the hon. Gentleman is interested.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I agree with what the Minister has said, but would she not agree that if one takes the figure of the agricultural technical advisory service and adds to it the consultants who advise people on the best agricultural and technical methods of improving their production in an industrial sense, this indirectly helps our own export trade?

Mrs. Hart: That is a valid point. I assure the House that we undertake an enormous amount of overseas development expenditure in terms of skilled expert advice and technical assistance as well as in terms of cash project programmes. In addition to our cash contributions to multilateral programmes, we are one of the foremost countries in the scale and expertise of advice.

Mr. Braine: Would the Minister agree that it is in agriculture overseas that the most specific results have been achieved in the last few years, where the results have been truly amazing? Is there not need for much more information to be made available? Could not her Department publish some special facts and figures showing our contribution to this important development?

Mrs. Hart: I should be delighted to consider the suggestion. There is a very great deal that is not known about this subject. Many hon. Members in the House would be happy to hear about the matter as would many people outside.

Developing Commonwealth Countries (Co-operation with German Institutions)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what schemes she has for co-operation with German institutions in the provision for aid in developing countries of the Commonwealth; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Hart: My predecessor had regular contacts with the Federal German Ministry for Economic Co-operation, and I certainly hope to continue this practice. I shall be meeting Herr Eppler this evening in Paris. I shall, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of two specific joint projects which we have entered into with German aid authorities.

Mr. Tilney: Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that the Commonwealth Development Corporation already collaborates with the Germans on certain schemes? The Germans have the money, yet they wish to collaborate with us bilaterally as we have local knowledge of the developing countries of the Commonwealth.

Mrs. Hart: I will, of course, bear that in mind, and I am looking forward to my discussions with Herr Eppler. There are examples where C.D.C. shares with the German aid authorities in projects, and this is all to be encouraged.

Mr. James Johnson: Assuming that "German" can mean East German as well as West German, may I suggest that my right hon. Friend applies her mind to the possibility of co-operation in Zanzibar, where the East Germans are building excellent houses for the Africans there?

Mrs. Hart: One is always delighted to hear that there are effective bilateral programmes in any developing country, wherever the aid comes from. We have our part to play in bilateral aid, and so do other countries. Here and there, it is possible by co-operation to achieve a great deal more.

Mr. Higgins: Is it not an extraordinary situation that, if a German firm invests

in a Commonwealth developing country, arrangements exist for insuring it against political risks, whereas if a British firm invests, they do not? Will the right hon. Lady discuss this and examine the German system?

Mrs. Hart: That is another question. I will be happy to answer it if the hon. Gentleman puts down one about it.

Following is the information:

(i) In Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda the Commonwealth Development Corporation holds shares, together with the German D.E.G., in the equity capital of local development finance companies in which the Government-sponsored Development Corporation of each country also takes part. The Netherlands N.O.F.C. is also a partner in the first two of these bodies, which are participating in a wide range of enterprises including agricultural and forestry processing, industrial manufacture (including cement production), the growing of tea and the development of hotels.
(ii) A link has been established between the University of Giessen, West Germany, and the University College, Nairobi, similar to the link between that college and the University of Glasgow. This has led to the provision of German staff for the Medical and Veterinary Faculties of University College, Nairobi. British and German staff have also been provided under joint arrangements for the Faculty of Agriculture at Nairobi.

Zambia (Development Loan)

Mr. Doig: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if the £8 million development loan offered to the Zambian Government has been accepted by them; and what were the terms for repayment.

Mrs. Hart: The offer of a loan has been accepted, but the terms of repayment have not yet been settled.

Mr. Doig: Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the terms for repayment are reasonable, otherwise it will put too great a strain on a country which in some ways is fighting our battle?

Mrs. Hart: My hon. Friend will be aware of my own past great concern about these matters in a former capacity. In the discussions that we are having with the Zambian Government, it will be our endeavour to reach a very fair settlement.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the best way in which Her


Majesty's Government can help the Zambian economy and the British economy is by restoring normal relations with Rhodesia?

Mrs. Hart: I did not expect that the hon. Gentleman would agree with what I said on this issue.

Aid (Official Figures)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she is satisfied as to the accuracy of the previous official figures showing that the flow of resources from Great Britain to developing countries in 1968 was less than 083 per cent. of the gross national product; and what is the latest estimate of the percentage.

Mrs. Hart: The figures previously given require amendment for 1967 and 1968 mainly because of later information about private investment and guaranteed private export credits. The latest estimate of total flows for 1968 is 0.75 per cent. The full revised figures will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Prentice: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this shows a much lower percentage for 1968 than we previously thought? In view of that, does it not strengthen the case for a growing programme of official aid in the years immediately ahead to make good the larger gap now existing between our performance and the 1 per cent. target?

Mrs. Hart: I agree with my right hon. Friend, of course, and I am sorry that I cannot enter into a fuller discussion because, as I have said, I expect to make a statement later this afternoon.

Mr. Braine: Does the right hon. Lady also agree that this decline in private investment overseas calls, as Pearson recommends, for a new look at insurance against non-commercial risks? If other development countries find it to their advantage to embark upon such schemes, why does not this country?

Mrs. Hart: This is very much a question not for me but for one of my colleagues. Certainly I am ready to consider this in conjunction with him.

Following is the information:


REVISED FIGURES OF OVERSEAS AID FOR 1967 AND 1968


(the figures in brackets were given in an answer in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) on 5th May, 1969)—Vol. 783. c. 6–8.



1967
1968



£ million
£ million


Official Flows Cross
208·4
210·6



(208·4)
(210·2)


Amortisation
29·4
32·2



(29·4)
(32·1)


Total Net of Amortisation
179·0
178·5



(179·0)
(178·1)


Private Flows




Private Investment (net of disinvestment)
75·0
79·0



(83·0)
(95·0)


Guaranteed Private Export Credits
64·4
63·1



(40·5)
(78·9)



139·4
142·1



(123·5)
(173·9)


Total Official and Private Flows (net)
318·4
320·6



(302·5)
(352·0)


GNP
40·140
42·899



(39·870)
(42·547)


Percentages




Official Flow
0·45
0·42



(0·45)
(0·42)


Private Flow
0·35
0·33



(0·31)
(0·41)


Total Flow
0·79
0·75



(0·76)
(0·83)

Gibraltar (Playing and Sports Facilities)

Mr. Donald Williams: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make increased grants to Gibraltar to provide additional playing and sports facilities to assist the local population and to promote the tourist industry on the Rock.

Mrs. Hart: We have recently received proposals from the Government of Gibraltar and shall be discussing them in London next week with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and his colleagues.

Mr. Williams: I feel sure that that answer will be welcomed by the Chief Minister and the Gibraltarians. I hope that this country, through the right hon. Lady, will give to the Gibraltarians all


the help that we can at this time, and perhaps also some support for Miss Gibraltar this evening.

Mrs. Hart: I shall be in Paris this evening and, regrettably, will miss the great event, whether or not she wins. I sympathise with what has been said. Again in a former capacity I was much involved in the problems of Gibraltar at a key period. I am very much looking forward to our discussions next week.

Mr. George Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, during this past summer, Her Majesty's Forces stationed in Gibraltar have achieved marvellous results in improving tourist facilities and in the various work on which they have cooperated with the civil authorities? Will she ensure that whatever help is given by way of monetary grants it will not end that co-operation in a practical way?

Mrs. Hart: I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend says, and I should be delighted to hear more from him about what he has discovered on his recent visit. I think that we all take it for granted that co-operation with Gibraltar will not stop just at money, and we all desire to give every possible and practical assistance that we can.

Former Colonial Civil Servants (Pensions)

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will make a statement on the future arrangements about responsibility for the payment of pensions to former colonial civil servants by countries who receive assistance in aid from her department.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will review the future arrangements regarding the payment of pensions to former colonial civil servants by countries who receive or have received aid from the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Hart: This is an important and complex question with substantial implications for the aid programme. It is being re-examined in depth, but I cannot at present add to what my predecessor said in the adjournment debates of the 26th July, 1968, and the 20th Decem-

ber, 1968.—[Vol. 769, c. 1248–53; Vol. 775, c. 1724–33.]

Mr. Lyon: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that this is a very unsatisfactory situation? We are the only former colonial Power to treat our colonial servants in this way. It means that they are dependent upon our former colonial territories for their pensions which, as we have seen, has unsatisfactory repercussions. Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side are resentful that this should be described as overseas aid when, apparently, some of it goes into the pocket of the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison)?

Mrs. Hart: I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's concern about this. I know that he pressed my predecessor strongly on the point. Clearly it is a very great problem, and I hope that my own re-examination of it will perhaps make it possible to move on. But I cannot yet say, because I am in the middle of it.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are widespread feelings on the subject, especially in view of the fact that, as far as we know, no other country imposes this kind of burden upon its ex-colonial territories?

Mrs. Hart: There is a very powerful case to be made here. There are also powerful arguments against. It is a matter of reaching the right balance of judgment on the basis of further study.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the right hon. Lady aware that I am not a former colonial civil servant, that I am quite happy about my exiguous proportionate pension which is coming from Pakistan, and that I will not worry Her Majesty's Government about it?

Mrs. Hart: I am delighted to hear that there is one subject about which the hon. Gentleman will not be worrying us.

Malawi (New Capital)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what help she is giving to the Government of Malawi in connection with the building of their new capital at Lilongwe.

Mrs. Hart: None. British Government aid to Malawi, which is currently over £8 million per year, is fully committed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view both of the responsible nature of that Government and their friendlines to this country, is it not rather tragic that a project to which they attach the greatest importance has been left by Her Majesty's Government to be helped by other Governments.

Mrs. Hart: It was a question of reaching the right decision on this and, as I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, it was a very difficult problem at the time. Again, I was somewhat involved in it. The problem is that development aid money from Britain must go to projects which have development value. If a country attaches importance to a project which intrinsically does not have development value, it is very difficult to justify giving aid for it. But we are giving very generous help to Malawi in many other directions.

Mr. William Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a controversial and dubious scheme and, in a nation where one child in two does not live to the age of five, there are far better ways of spending money?

Mrs. Hart: I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that I would not want to comment on judgments made in Malawi by the Malawi Government about this problem.

Malaysia and Singapore

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what sums were paid in aid to the Governments of Malaysia and Singapore during the years 1967 and 1968.

Mrs. Hart: The amounts of economic aid made available to Malaysia in 1967 and 1968 were, respectively, £5·6 million and £7.1 million. The corresponding figures for Singapore were £1·9 million and £1.0 million.

Mr. Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that these figures include a certain element of military aid? Having confirmed that, as I believe that she will, will she explain why she does not accept the U.N.C.T.A.D. definition that military aid should not be included in the definition of aid?

Mrs. Hart: I think that my hon. Friend may find that I shall have something to say about this in my statement. But I

can confirm that, and perhaps I might write to my hon. Friend with full details of the way that this operates in relation to Singapore and Malaysia and the aid programme.

Aid Programme (Balance of Payments)

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what was the effect on Great Britain's balance of payments for the years 1967 and 1968, rounded to the nearest £1 million, taking account of purchases in the United Kingdom, the amortisation on borrowed capital and interest payment on loans, of the total aid programme.

Mrs. Hart: The effect of our aid programme on the balance of payments is complex. The balance of payments cost of a marginal addition to the aid programme is estimated at about one-third or rather more where there is pressure on the capacity of industries producing aid-financed exports. Amortisation and interest payments on account of past aid loans, amounting to approximately £58 million in 1967 and £60 million in 1968, are estimated to make a net contribution to the balance of payments of the order of £40 million a year.

Mr. Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, looking at the figures, the demands on the economy of this country for economic aid are far less than many people both in this House and outside accept? Does my right hon. Friend not think it proper to bring this information to the notice of the public in a more acceptable way than is already done?

Mrs. Hart: There is a valid point here. I am certain that the opponents of aid do not understand that this is so. I shall be glad to do everything that I can to make this information more fully known to the public. But I also have to rely a great deal on those Members of this House who are in favour of aid and higher aid programmes to help me to do it.

Mr. Prentice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the point that she mentions, there are considerable indirect benefits to our balance of payments through aid, such as orders for spare parts and replacements in aided projects, and the orders that we get from


other countries' aid programmes and multilateral aid programmes? The position can be summarised by saying that the best possible investment for the future of our balance of payments would be an increase in the flow of development aid from Britain and from the developed world generally.

Mrs. Hart: I agree with my distinguished predecessor, and add one further point. The extent to which expenditure on aid can promote in general an expansion of world development can subsequently develop world trade from which we, along with others, can only benefit.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

Exhibition Contracting Industry

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the percentage increase in average weekly earnings in the exhibition contracting industry implicit in the agreement signed between the two sides of the industry on 7th February and frozen by her Department until February, 1970; and what is the corresponding percentage increase expected to result from the new settlement now negotiated under the aegis of her department.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): In its Report No. 117, the National Board for Prices and Incomes did not quantify the increases implicit in the February agreement referred to them but said that the increases were well above the 3½ per cent. ceiling. The new settlement, operative from September, was not negotiated under the aegis of my Department. It is difficult to say what the precise effect of the agreement on earnings will be, but I would accept that the percentage increase may be of the same order as would have resulted from the February agreement.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it not a fact that the rejected settlement involved a 10s. a week so-called productivity bonus, and that the sole result of the right hon. Lady's meddling in this instance was to transform it into an l1s. 6d. increase in basic rates which will be inflated by overtime rates?

Mr. Walker: No. The hon. Gentleman has got it all wrong. It was a 3½ per cent. plus 10s. per day agreement that was originally referred to the board and eventually resulted in a settlement of 11s. 3d. for craftsmen. The settlement referred to the board was still the subject of a work to rule within the industry and was not the subject, therefore, of agreement.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many days' work were lost in the exhibition contracting industry through industrial action between the freezing of the wage settlement for the industry agreed on 7th February and the agreement of an alternative settlement.

Mr. Harold Walker: The number of days recorded as lost is approximately 15,600.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: What was the resulting loss of export orders from these days lost purely and exclusively from the fatuous meddling of the right hon. Lady? Is not this a classic example of the nonsense that goes on when the right hon. Lady puts her fingers into matter which do not concern her?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is about as wide of the mark on that point as on the last. There is no evidence that exports were in any way adversely affected. No exhibitions were affected as a consequence of the work to rule or other militant action in the industry.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory-nature of that reply, I beg leave to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Price Stability

Mr. Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make arrangements for an examination of manufacturing costs and retail prices in the main field of consumer spending, with a view to establishing some degree of prices stability.

Mr. Harold Walker: The objective sought by my hon. Friend is already being pursued through the operation of the policy for productivity, prices and incomes.

Mr. Milne: Will my hon. Friend use his influence in this direction in view of


increasing apprehension about price increases, bearing in mind that this is one of the central features of our economic policy and that we want to see some results in the immediate future?

Mr. Walker: I think that we are all anxious about possible price increases. But we shall shortly be introducing a new White Paper on the future policy of prices, incomes and productivity. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to await the outcome of that White Paper.

Consett and Stanley (Unemployment)

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Secretary of State and Productivity what is the unemployment rate for men and for women in the Consett-Stanley travel-to-work area of County Durham at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Harold Walker: At 10th November, 1969, the provisional percentage rates of unemployment in the Consett, Stanley and Lanchester travel-to-work area were 7·3 for males and 2·4 for females.

Mr. Watkins: Is it possible for the hon. Gentleman to break down these figures in terms of age groups? Can he say whether there is a predominance of older men of working age amongst them?

Mr. Walker: I cannot give the breakdown offhand, but I shall be pleased to write to the hon. Gentleman to try to give him the information that he seeks. There is a problem with the older male workers, particularly redundant exminers.

NIGERIA

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if he will take an initiative and approach both General Gowon and General Ojukwu with the aim of ending the Nigerian war.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): On ending the war I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to a Question by him on 17th November. I am discussing what further approach should be made on the question of relief.—[Vol. 791, c. 824.]

Mr. Allaun: Will the Prime Minister at least support the new Swiss move and

reject any insistence that only the O.A.U. must solve this problem, because manifestly the O.A.U. has failed?
Secondly, on aid, will my right hon. Friend help Joint Church Aid, because it is known still to be flying in food to the starving children of Biafra?

The Prime Minister: On the first point. I have never insisted, in so far as this country is in a position to insist on this purely Nigerian question, that mediation should take place by the O.A.U., but I have always thought that it was best fitted to do it.
On the question of the appeal that has been made to the Swiss Government and to certain other European Governments, obviously if they are able to solve the problem we would welcome any initiative which could be taken. But whoever does it will still have to face the problem that the O.A.U. has so far not been able to succeed.
On the second point, as I have said, we are currently discussing what should be done—and urgently—on the question of relief.

Mr. Heath: The Foreign Secretary has told the House that the Federal Government are prepared to enter into talks without prior conditions. First, can the Prime Minister say whether this means without any insistence that there should be one Nigeria?
Secondly, as Colonel Ojukwu has publicly said that he will enter into talks without prior conditions, will the Prime Minister explain to the House what is holding up the two sides getting together at the moment?
Thirdly, would it be possible to take the initiative through one of the African countries to see whether a meeting can be brought about through the African system?

The Prime Minister: We have been in close touch with a large number of African countries, both Commonwealth and otherwise. Only a week or two ago I discussed the question with the Emperor of Ethiopia's Foreign Minister when he was here.
The position for a long time has been —and I so reported to the House last March after my visit there—that the Federal Government have made it plain


that they were prepared to sit down without prior conditions. On the other hand, Colonel Ojukwu has felt that to sit down without a cease-fire would be difficult. So far there has been no agreement by the Federal Government to sit down without conditions and at the same time to have a cease-fire. We know the use to which a cease-fire might be put, and I think that is the real difficulty. The Federal Government have said that if there is to be a cease-fire—[Interruption.] —These are very important matters affecting the lives of millions of people. Three questions were put to me by the right hon. Gentleman. I think that he is entitled to a reply, even though his back benchers do not.
The Federal Government have said that if it was a question of a cease-fire they would want to make sure that any talks were meaningful and that, therefore, involved, as they put it, talks on the basis of a United Nigeria.

Mr. Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend consider sending a Minister or a senior official to Biafra to see what can be done to end the deadlock over relief supplies? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern in Britain over the starvation in Biafra, and the lack of action on our part in ending the deadlock by sending food direct to these people who need it?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the strictures in my hon. Friend's last few words. Eighteen months ago I sent Lord Hunt there, and the mercy corridor would have been open ever since if it were not closed at the Biafran end. The same is true in relation to daylight flights, a matter which we pursued when I was there. I assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware of the deep concern in this country, and indeed in all civilised countries, about the malnutrition, starvation and shortage of food in Biafra. The food is there, much of it in Nigeria, and could be driven in in trucks within a matter of hours, or days at the worst. [Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter. If the hon. Gentleman wants to titter in his constituency about starvation, he may do so. I was trying to answer a question from my hon. Friend expressing concern about this matter, a concern which I am sure is shared by 99 per cent. of the House. There is enough food in Cotonou, I think 10,000 tons, which

could be flown in there in a matter of days if we had daylight flights. That expresses our concern. We have been trying to get daylight flights established.
I do not rule out sending a Minister or other emissary into the area to see Colonel Ojukwu if we think that that might help.

Mr. Tilney: What approach is being made by the Government to the other Powers who are sending arms to both sides to see whether the maximum pressure can be brought to bear on the Federal Government and the rebels to reach some sort of solution?

The Prime Minister: We have had talks with the French Government and also with the African Commonwealth countries who have recognised so-called Biafra and others who are at any rate fairly neutral about the matter and pressed them to put pressure both on the relief question and on the question of the settlement of the war. As my right hon. Friend has reported to the House, we have talked to the French Government about this and they are considering it.

OLD PEOPLE

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to examine the problem of caring for old people.

The Prime Minister: We are constantly seeking to bring about further improvements in this field, but I do not think that at the present time a Royal Commission or special inquiry would take us forward in this task.

Mr. Baker: Does the Prime Minister recall that in 1965 the Government told us that 361,000 old people never, or rarely, had a hot meal? Is the Prime Minister aware that now, in 1969, a growing number of old people are found on admission to hospital to be suffering from malnutrition, a state into which they relapse after being released? When are the Government going to deal with this problem?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a considerable number of those in 1965 who were living below any standard that anyone in this House would support were living on that standard because, although they would


have qualified for what was then National Assistance benefit, for one reason or another, in many cases pride, and the evidence of stigma, they did not apply for it. As a result of the reforms that we introduced in 1966, about 450,000 of those people are now in receipt of supplementary benefits.

Mr. Maxwell: Will my right hon. Friend consider bringing in legislation to prevent the rise in the numbers of people abandoning their parents at a cost to the public purse? In particular, will he consider introducing legislation so that when children do abandon their parents some of their wages can be attached for assistance, instead of allowing these people to fall as a burden on the public purse?

The Prime Minister: That raises a very wide question indeed, and one can imagine that legislation would need a great deal of thinking about and would be highly controversial. It is my impression, and I am sure that of the whole House, that the vast proportion of middle-aged and young families have a very real concern and make real provision for their elderly parents. We are dealing only with the exceptional cases, for which we have made provision.

Lord Balniel: Is the Prime Minister aware that the planned development of special community health and welfare services for the elderly has been throttled right back by the Government at a time when the number of elderly is increasing very considerably? As the Government cannot sort out their own sense of social priorities, is not there a strong argument for having a Royal Commission to review the whole field?

The Prime Minister: I hope that I never have to defend the social priorities of the previous Government. Fortunately the noble Lord has the advantage that he was not a member of that Government, so he can approach this with a fresher mind. As the noble Lord says, this is a question of priorities. The enormous advance that we have made in the social services, with the provision of a more than 70 per cent. increase in financial provision for helping the social services generally, is sufficient earnest of what we have done, very often in the face of heavy criticism, to help the kind of people whom the noble Lord has in mind. As regards the centres, in many

parts of the social services we have increased these immeasurably beyond what we inherited.

PRIME MINISTER (TELEVISION BROADCAST)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a Ministerial television broadcast on New Year's Eve on Government policies for 1970.

The Prime Minister: I shall be otherwise engaged on that date, Sir.

Mr. Marten: If the Prime Minister's plans are changed and he is given an opportunity to speak to the nation in any way, will he perhaps tell the nation what proposals he has for dropping any of his policies in 1970? Second, could he also make a very clear statement to the nation on what he proposes in the way of further action to deal with industrial stoppages which are causing so much anxiety to the public?

The Prime Minister: I think it unlikely that my engagements will be changed. I shall be in severe trouble if I do change them, because on that evening I shall be starting the celebration of my 30th wedding anniversary.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: She has my sympathy.

The Prime Minister: She has mine, too, in view of the number of times that she comes to listen to Questions. If the only incentive which the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) can offer for cancelling the arrangements which I made a long time ago is to make the kind of broadcast that he suggested, I can tell him that I have no intention, at this or at any other time, of announcing the dropping of policies which are so valuable to the nation.

MIDDLE EAST

Mr. Eadie: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements for dealing with policy matters by Her Majesty's Ministers have been made as a result of the prolongation of the war in the Middle East.

The Prime Minister: There has been no change in the arrangements, Sir.

Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that U Thant is reported to have


said that we are probably in for another hundred years' war in the Middle East? As we are so dependent on the Middle East for such a large slice of our oil supplies, would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a further illustration of how the White Paper on Fuel Policy is redundant? What does my right hon. Friend propose to do about it?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that anybody in this House, nor U Thant, would want to use that remark to show that nothing should be done about trying to get a settlement in the much nearer future. I know that my hon. Friend would not want his question to be misinterpreted as meaning that he is concerned only with oil supplies. There is a much stronger moral reason why we should all try to seek a settlement—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Like in Nigeria.

The Prime Minister: Yes, like in Nigeria.

Hon. Members: And in Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister: This is a very difficult problem, almost an intransigent one. We are pressing for an early resumption of the four-Power talks in which we have an important stake.

Mr. Walters: Bearing in mind the increasingly deteriorating situation and the threat that it could bring to British interests, should not the Prime Minister now consider a new British Government initiative, possibly in association with France?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Member will feel the right answer is that, since France and ourselves are both engaged with the United States and the Soviet Union in four-Power talks, this is the right forum for pressing what I know the hon. Gentleman genuinely has in mind.

Dr. Miller: Would the Prime Minister not agree that the full implementation of a cease-fire in the area would be the most valuable contribution to the solution of the problems there?

The Prime Minister: The United Nations has repeatedly called for a ceasefire on both sides. That is really aimed at preventing the situation from getting even more dangerous than it is. The future solution of the problem, which we

hope will be at a much earlier date than has been mentioned this afternoon, must depend on the full implementation of the Security Council resolution, which we moved there.

Mr. Heath: The Foreign Secretary told the House, I think on 17th November, that his interpretation of the United Nations resolution was that withdrawal from territories did not mean all territories which were occupied in the six-day war and that this had to be read in conjunction with the words "there should be secure frontiers as a result of a settlement." Is this not a most important interpretation of the resolution, and can the Prime Minister say whether this represents any change in British policy? Is this interpretation accepted by the other three Powers with whom we are having private talks in the United Nations, and is it accepted by the Israelis and the Arabs?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to what my right hon. Friend said, but that is the interpretation we have put on it all along and made clear at the time of the acceptance of the resolution. It has been the basis of Dr. Jarring's talks. It has also been the basis of our approach in the four-Power talks. It is a question of concurrence, not necessarily in terms of time, but an agreed package from the beginning, so that if point A happens point B automatically follows, including the security of frontiers and the security of the right to live, of countries in that area who have not been granted the right even of recognition. As to what the areas from which withdrawal would be appropriate may be, that is still an unsolved problem between the Four. We have made our position clear, that it must be a package as a whole. If one thing begins the rest must follow.

Mr. Swain: Returning to the real meaning behind my hon. Friend's Question, namely, the fuel policy, and in view of the difficulties obtaining in the nuclear power and natural gas industries, could my right hon. Friend and the Government have another look at the fuel policy with a view to its early review?

The Prime Minister: The difficulties which my hon. Friend may have discerned, whether in the supply of North


Sea gas or in the generation of nuclear power, do not, I think, arise from the prolongation of the war in the Middle East.

Sir D. Renton: Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking not to reduce further the strength of any of our forces in the Middle East areas, especially with regard to the Persian Gulf?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has said in repeated defence debates that the right hon. and learned Gentleman totally misconceives our position over our influence in the Middle East if he thinks that it depends on forces in the Persian Gulf.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: Would the Leader of the House please state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 1ST DECEMBER—Private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
Remaining stages of the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill.
TUESDAY, 2ND DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill.
Remaining stages of the Insolvency Services (Accounting and Investment Bill and of the Valuation for Rating (Scotland) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 3RD DECEMBER—Supply [3rd Allotted Day]:
Debate on the Government's Broadcasting Policy, which will arise on an Opposition Motion.
Prayer on the Transfer of Functions (Monopolies, Mergers and Restrictive Trade Practices) Order.
THURSDAY, 4TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Gas Bill.
Motion on the Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations.
FRIDAY, 5TH DECEMBER—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 8TH DECEMBER—Debate on Foreign Affairs, which will be continued on Tuesday, 9th December, the 4th Allotted Supply Day.

Mr. Heath: Can the right hon. Gentleman now tell us when the next White Paper on pensions will be published, and, also, give the House a clear indication of when we are to have a debate, before the Bill?

Mr. Peart: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman, quite rightly, would raise this. It is hoped to introduce the Bill soon. In addition, there will be an Explanatory Memorandum in the form of a White Paper, which is not unusual with Bills of this sort. It is further proposed that there should be a White Paper on the actuarial background.
I see little prospect of Government time for a preliminary debate before the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Heath: I must tell the Leader of the House that this is just not good enough. In answer to a question by me, on 6th November, the Prime Minister told the House that there was some desire for a debate and that he thought that that was the right way to deal with the matter. That was on the White Paper. The Leader of the House, during business questions directly afterwards, gave a similar assurance when he said that this was the desire of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and that he would, therefore, look into it.
This is a clear assurance that the Leader of the House would give the House time for a debate on the White Paper before the Bill. What we are now faced with is that the Secretary of State stated in a speech on 23rd November that he would publish the Bill in 10 day's time. That takes us to about 3rd December or 4th December. The House must have a debate on these White Papers before the Bill is published.

Mr. Peart: I have looked into this. If the Opposition had really felt so strongly about this they could have chosen today's Supply day.

Mr. Heath: I must press the right hon. Gentleman. There are three Government White Papers published here, and the Government are to publish a Bill.


They are treating the House with the utmost contempt unless the House is allowed to express its considered views on these White Papers before the Government publish the Bill. The Opposition have already given a lot of time for Government business. The Leader of the House knows this full well. We are giving a day for the debate on foreign affairs and he knows, too, the arrangements, on another matter for which we are giving a day. It is the Government's job to provide time for debate.

Mr. Peart: I accept that the Opposition are providing a day for foreign affairs and broadcasting. But in view of Government business up to Christmas, I cannot possibly accede to the right hon. Gentleman's request.

Dr. Summerskill: Would my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on the subject of nurses' pay and would he please not say "Next week". or that he takes note?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend presses me, but I must say "Not next week".

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that there is a lot of business ahead.

Mr. Fortescue: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the last White Paper on pensions is one of the most complex and difficult documents ever put before the House? Is he aware that it would be scandalous if we had to debate that at the same time as the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Peart: I am aware that it is a complex matter. This is why we are having more White Papers.

Mr. John Mendelson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there will be general appreciation of the quick arrangements for a two-day foreign affairs debate? Will he reaffirm his early assurance to the House that one day will be devoted entirely to the subject of Vietnam and that there will be a separate debate, on the other day, on Nigeria, so that we can have debates dealing with one important matter at a time, instead of hopping from one end of the globe to the other?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of my hon. Friend's view. I will look carefully into the question of how the debate should proceed. Technically, any Member can raise any matter connected with foreign affairs, but it may be convenient if we have an emphasis on one day on a particular subject.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to Motion No. 34:

[That the letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Mr. Speaker concerning relations between the House, the Treasury and the Civil Service, laid before the Select Committee on the House of Commons (Services) in the last session of Parliament, and not reported to the House, be laid before the House.]

This stands in my name, and the names of 79 hon. Members on both sides of the House. May I ask him how soon the House will have some opportunity of appreciating the Treasury's understanding of our proper place in its scheme of things?

Mr. Peart: I have seen the Motion in question, dealing with House of Commons services, but I cannot promise a debate. I will consider it with my colleagues on the Services Committee.

Mr. Orme: Would my right hon. Friend arrange for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to make a Statement next week about teachers' pay and the necessity for negotiations to take place following the breakdown of the Burnham procedure? In view of the fact that strikes are going on throughout the country—I believe that the teachers have a genuine case—should not this matter be discussed by the Government?

Mr. Peart: I will call my hon. Friend's views to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his refusal to have a separate debate on the abatement White Paper prior to the introduction to the National Superannuation Bill makes a mockery of both the Prime Minister's and Secretary of State's statements that they would like to hear the view of the House before coming to a final conclusion on a matter which is vital to the occupational schemes?

Mr. Peart: I cannot add to what I said earlier on this subject.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does my hon. Friend realise that while many of us are glad that a debate on broadcasting is to take place next week it will be taking place in Opposition time? Is he also aware that when "Broadcasting in the 'Seventies" was discussed at the end of last Session that, too, took place in Opposition time? Is he further aware that when the Government statement was made, that occurred during the Recess, which means that in the whole of this Parliament there has not been a debate on broadcasting at the initiative of the Government, this at a time when profound changes have been taking place? Is not this a sad state of affairs?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend has made his point. The Government's broadcasting policy will be debated, when I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to make his views known on that occasion.

Dane Irene Ward: If the Government do not provide time for the House to debate the pensions White Papers and if it is decided to have a Motion of censure on the Government over this matter, would the right hon. Gentleman consider it proper to give an assurance that the Bill will not be published until the debate on the Motion of censure has taken place? That may enable us to know where we stand.

Mr. Peart: I cannot indulge in Opposition hypothetics.

Mr. W. Baxter: Would my right hon. Friend allocate time to discuss the very important question of agriculture? While this will not be popular with hon. Gentlemen opposite, is my right hon. Friend aware that such a debate should take place, because the Opposition have no policy in connection with this important subject? Further—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot debate the merits of the case at this stage. He may only ask for time to debate the subject.

Mr. Peart: If my hon. Friend, who I know is deeply interested in farming, manages to encourage the Opposition to allot a Supply day for a debate on this

subject, we will be interested to know why they have changed their policy in this matter.

Mr. Fisher: For the information of the House, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the subjects suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) for the foreign affairs debate will be subjects for debate, and, if so, on which of the two days they will arise?

Mr. Peart: I cannot say that at this stage. I said that I would examine the matter.

Mr. Manuel: Would my right hon. Friend consider giving time to enable the House to debate the astonishing change that has occurred in the Opposition's agricultural policy? Is he aware that such a debate is urgent, because it has been the biggest change of policy that I can recall in my time in the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is unwittingly drifting into the merits of the case.

Mr. Peart: I cannot find time for such a debate next week, though I agree that it would be a suitable subject.

Dame Joan Vickers: In view of the importance of the Seebohm Report, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that a statement, a White Paper, or a debate on the subject takes place in the very near future and certainly before local authorities take their own line in the matter, which would be regrettable?

Mr. Peart: I will see that the hon. Lady's views are known in the right quarter.

Mr. Dickens: When is it hoped to make a statement about the implementation of the Sixth Report on House of Commons services?

Mr. Peart: I had hoped to make such a statement this week, but I am still having consultations on the subject.

Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)—in which he said that he could not indulge in what he called "Opposition hypothetics" —deserves full marks for originality if not for intelligibility?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will now come to his business question?

Mr. Peyton: Is the Leader of the House really satisfied that the questions which have been addressed to him calling for a debate on the pensions White Paper have received answers from him which are in any way worthy of the position he occupies?

An Hon. Member: Twit…

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peart: I suggest that, in his usual way, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is adopting an offensive manner.

Mr. Spriggs: Has my right hon. Friend seen the Motion on nurses' pay, to which reference has already been made, signed by a large number of hon. Members? Will he reconsider the reply which he gave earlier on this subject?

Mr. Peart: I said that I had noted it and that I would make representations to my right hon. Friend. A debate on the subject cannot take place next week.

Sir E. Boyle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would have seemed inconceivable at any earlier stage in our parliamentary history that the Government would not make time available for a debate on White Papers on the national superannuation scheme before the appearance of the scheme? Has not the purpose of White Papers always been, throughout our history, to elicit information in a wide national debate, including a debate in this House, before legislation is introduced?

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—but I cannot add to what I said earlier on the subject.

Mr. William Hamilton: In view of the indecisive vote which occurred last Friday on the question of televising the proceedings of the House, would my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will provide Government time for the subject to be debated in the middle of the week—if not next week, then some time in the very near future?

Mr. Peart: I cannot give that assurance.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Reverting to the question of the two-day foreign affairs debate, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is vitally important that it should be divided into sections rather than there being a general tour of the world? Will he seriously consider having a part of the time available for debating the Nigerian war, a subject which moves many hon. Members on both sides of the House?

Mr. Peart: I will consider that. Indeed, that is why I said earlier that I would consider the matter.

Mr. Parker: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Not for a long time yet.

Mr. Tuck: May I press my right hon. Friend to reconsider his reply about the need to give time, either next week or in the near future, for a consideration of the complete about-face of the Opposition's agricultural policy? The people should know of this  Volte-face.

Mr. Peart: I appreciate the importance of the subject and my hon. Friend is right to mention it. It is, of course, a matter for the Opposition. I would be interested to hear the comments of hon. Gentlemen opposite on the subject.

Lord Balniel: When the right hon. Gentleman said that a debate on pensions and the Government's White Paper should take place not in Government time but on an Opposition Supply day, was he really saying that we should not trust the Government's word when they say that they will provide time to debate a certain subject?

Mr. Peart: I cannot add to what I said earlier on the subject.

Mr. Chapman: Will the promised second debate on procedure take place before Christmas?

Mr. Peart: I cannot promise, but I hope that it will occur at an early date.

Sir D. Renton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall saying, this time last week, that he would consider providing time for a debate on the Beeching Report before legislation based on it was introduced into either House? Is he aware that since last Thursday there has been introduced into another place the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords], at


least one Clause of which enables the Beeching proposals to be implemented, certainly to an extent? Will he therefore please grant time as soon as possible to discuss this very vital report?

Mr. Peart: I will consider the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks, but I am somewhat pressed for time before Christmas.

Mr. Ron Lewis: When are we likely to discuss the report on youth and community work in the 'seventies?

Mr. Peart: Not next week.

Mr. Farr: When is the Government White Paper on the Common Market likely to be produced? Will the House have an opportunity to discuss it before fresh negotiations are commenced?

Mr. Peart: I would not have thought that that would occur next week, or before Christmas. I agree, however, that before any decision is taken, the information which has been promised should be made available.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: May I once more bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Motion on the Order Paper on civil air transport licensing, standing in my name and the names of at least 70 of my hon. Friends, and ask him to provide time for a full debate on it before the Christmas Recess?

[That this House protests most strongly against any suggestion that a second British carrier should compete against the British Overseas Airways Corporation on the North Atlantic route; and calls upon the President of the Board of Trade to give an immediate and definite direction to any proposed civil aviation authority that new and independent operators should not be allowed to endanger the financial viability of the nationalised corporations on either domestic or international routes.]

Mr. Peart: I cannot give an assurance on that.

Mr. Emery: Will the Leader of the House press the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to produce a White Paper on prices and incomes next week, or if not, to make a statement, because many industries are negotiating wage increases which are to start on 1st

January for the whole of next year and if Government policy is not known, as usual, it will be too late?

Mr. Peart: At the appropriate time my right hon. Friend will introduce a White Paper.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: May I press my right hon. Friend about the reply he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens)? He stated that he was undertaking further consultations. Can he tell the House when he expects to have completed them and will be making a statement on House of Commons services?

Mr. Peart: Soon.

Sir Hannar Nicholls: Quite apart from feelings expressed on this side of the House, is the Leader of the House not aware of the embarrassment felt by hon. Members behind him as he is not allowing for a debate on the White Papers on pensions? Is it not clear that he and the Prime Minister are going back on their word and perverting the proceedings of Parliament? Is he aware that if he will not do this, we shall have to urge our Leader to put down a Motion of censure?

Mr. Peart: I am rather surprised at the extravagant language used by the hon. Member. I cannot add to what I said earlier.

Mr. Swain: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with his right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for power—whoever he may be this week; I do not know—the possibility of an early debate on the coal industry?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend has been away for a few days.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Select Committee on Science and Technology published a report on 7th May and that we still have not had the Government's reply? This must make the people wonder whether the Government are in turmoil about a correct reply. How much longer are we to wait as it is more than six months since this very important report was published?

Mr. Peart: I accept that and will make representations.

Mr. David Howell: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the report from the


Estimates Committee on serious overloading in the Inland Revenue Department due to the Government's tax reforms? Will he arrange for an early debate on this very important subject?

Mr. Peart: I have noted that and I have had many representations on it which I will consider.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: What has happened to the Bill to implement the proposals of the Phelps Brown Committee, which was needed urgently so many months ago?

Mr. Peart: It will be produced next week.

Mr. George Jeger: Does the Leader of the House recall the Foreign Secretary saying that at the conclusion of his talks with the Ambassador from Madrid, the Governor of Gibraltar and Ministers of Gibraltar, a statement would be made to this House? Will he ask the Foreign Secretary whether the statement can be made during the two days debate on foreign affairs so as to give us a chance to voice our views upon it?

Mr. Peart: I think that that request is reasonable. I will convey it to my right hon. Friend and ask him if he can make a statement during the debate.

Mr. Heath: I must once again press the Leader of the House to give time to debate the White Paper on pensions. The Prime Minister gave his word that there would be a debate and the Leader of the House confirmed this. He said that he could not state the precise date, but he confirmed it. Not only is he breaking his word, but he is breaking the Prime Minister's word.
The Secretary of State has quite rightly had discussions with all outside bodies concerned before publishing the Bill, and the only people who have not been able to express a view are us in the House of Commons. This is absolutely lamentable. Will he carry out his duty and give the House an opportunity of discussing this important proposal, which will affect millions of people?

Mr. Peart: I have said that there is no possibility of a debate before Christmas—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because of pressure of business. But I am always prepared to consider

a situation and I will give an assurance that I shall consider the point so emphasised by the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot go beyond that.

TILBURY DOCKS (CONTAINER BERTHS)

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I will, with permission, make a statement about the present difficulties which are preventing the operation of the O.C.L./A.C.T. modernised terminal at Tilbury.
Overseas Containers Limited and Associated Containers Transportation yesterday announced that, in the light of the continued refusal of the No. 1 Docks Group Committee of the Transport and General Workers' Union to lift its ban on the implementation of the agreement reached in January this year, covering the operation of the O.C.L./A.C.T. terminal at Tilbury, they have decided to place on a more permanent basis at Antwerp the alternative arrangements introduced in March for the handling of the U.K./Australia traffic.
O.C.L./A.C.T. are also taking steps to place their Tilbury terminal on a care and maintenance basis and to redeploy staff. O.C.L. is giving further consideration to the dismantling of equipment at Tilbury. I also understand that O.C.L./ A.C.T. are seeking an increase in freight charges to and from Australia to cover additional costs of trans-shipment of cargoes to and from the Continent.
Although, before January, 1968, a number of modernised terminal berth agreements negotiated by the T. & G.W.U. had come into operation, the No. 1 Dock Group Committee then decided to impose a ban on the further implementation of modernised berth agreements until a Stage II Devlin agreement had been reached for London as a whole. The lead in these negotiations has been taken by the employers in the Enclosed Docks and by the T. & G.W.U., and after intensive discussions, an offer by the employers, which provides in return for two-shift working and flexible manning a standard weekly wage of £33 10s. for the great majority of dockers and £36 for those working on ships, was put to the


men by ballot earlier this month. It was rejected by 3,090 votes to 2,442.
Following the ballot, the No. 1 Docks Group Committee confirmed their ban on further modernised berth agreements, and at Tilbury yesterday the men rejected by a narrow majority a proposal that they should nevertheless bring the modernised berths at Tilbury into operation. It was these two events which precipitated the O.C.L./A.C.T. decision to which I have referred.
My Department has been in close touch with the two sides throughout these negotiations and has assisted in bringing them together. It has had joint meetings with the employers and with the full No. 1 Docks Group Committee in order to try to get the ban removed.
I fully appreciate the concern of dockers over their future employment prospects in view of the reduced labour requirements which follow the introduction of modern cargo handling methods. In view, however, of the special protection against redundancy afforded to dockers by the Dock Labour Scheme, the successful operation of agreed voluntary severance arrangements introduced in June, 1969, and the introduction from the same date of improved pensions and a lower retirement age, and also of the terms of the Enclosed Docks employers' offer, to which I have already referred, I would urge the union to reconsider its attitude and, without waiting further on the conclusion of the Stage II Devlin negotiations, to lift the ban—in the interests of the country, the port and the men themselves.
I am seeking an early meeting with Mr. Victor Feather, of the T.U.C., and Mr. Jack Jones, of the T. & G.W.U. to discuss the serious position which has now arisen.

Mr. Peter Walker: Does the First Secretary of State agree that the announcements made yesterday are not only disastrous because of the adverse effect which this will have on British exports but will also have an appallingly long-term adverse effect on the whole future of the transport industry? The fact that after eight months' notice of this terminal being closed agreements freely entered into are not being able to operate and there is still no agreement made will

mean that our European competitors for container transport will obtain a great advantage.
Does the right hon. Lady recognise, also, that we on this side support her in urging the union quickly to decide to treat the Stage II Devlin negotiations and the agreement already freely entered into on the terminal as completely separate agreements? As, for eight months, nothing has happened, on reflection does not the right hon. Lady consider that her Ministry could have done something during the past eight months to have avoided this position being reached?
We wish her every success in her talks with Mr. Vic Feather and Mr. Jack Jones, but ask her not to hesitate to call a court of inquiry if that will assist to bring about a quick settlement.

Mrs. Castle: It is because I appreciate the far-reaching implications of this situation and the dangers to our modern port developments that I have made this statement this afternoon. I hope that the whole House will join me in urging the separation of the Tilbury arrangements from the negotiations covering the rest of the docks. My Department has taken every possible step, and will continue to take every possible step, which we think will help to secure a solution to this problem.

Mr. Marsh: Without wishing to underestimate the seriousness of the situation, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that there are 13 container berths in Tilbury and that 11 of them are operating as efficiently as any anywhere in the world? Does not part of the problem in the rest of the London docks arise from the multiplicity of employers within the docks, which makes the Opposition's objection to the part of the Ports Bill which is designed to cut down the number of employers quite inexplicable?

Mrs. Castle: It is true that certain modern facilities were brought into operation before the ban was imposed. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that the one-employer principle, which he worked so hard to attempt to secure, is vital for the future success of the docks.

Dr. Winstanley: I regret the necessity for this action, but agree that it is the right action now to take. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the underlying


trouble is, not so much money, but insecurity? Whilst recognising the protection afforded by the Dock Labour Scheme, will the right hon. Lady do everything she can to allay the fears of these people, which have been aroused, not so much by this situation, as by the way in which they were treated in the past, so that we can move to a more permanent satisfactory solution?

Mrs. Castle: I agree that it is a sense of insecurity which is playing a very big part. The tragedy is that the very ban which is being used as a weapon against insecurity is threatening jobs in the future. Steps have been taken to correct the errors of the past, as I pointed out in my statement, by the voluntary serverance scheme, by the improved pension scheme, by the lowering of the retirement age, and by the continuation of the protection of the docks labour scheme. Everything possible is being done. It is now for the men themselves to safeguard their future by allowing this fine modern terminal to work.

Mr. Delargy: May I, as the Member of Parliament which includes Tilbury, welcome my right hon. Friend's appreciation of the fact that the opposition of the dockers is based almost wholly on their anxieties about redundancy? Could the Government do more to allay these anxieties than they have done already? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although I am very pleased indeed that she is seeking an early meeting with Mr. Victor Feather and Mr. Jack Jones, I should have been even more pleased if she had said that she was treating such a meeting as a matter of immediate urgency in the interests, as she says, of the country, of the port, and of the men at Tilbury?

Mrs. Castle: I am hoping to have the meeting tonight. I stand ready to have it in the next five minutes, except that I must give time for the other persons concerned to respond to my request and make themselves available. I do not think that we have lost any time.
On the question of improvements in the security of the men, I know that my hon. Friend fully understands the position in the docks. He knows full well that dockers enjoy unique protection against compulsory redundancy, because no employer can discharge a man without

the approval of the Dock Labour Board. My hon. Friend also knows that payments substantially in excess of normal redundancy pay—in some cases up to nearly £2,000 per man—are available under the severance scheme. Therefore, a great deal has been done. We must now plead with the dockers to drop the defensive attitudes which are endangering their own future.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Was it not to avoid a situation such as this that the T.U.C. gave solemn and binding undertakings some time ago? What action have Mr. Feather and his colleagues taken over the last few months to persuade the men at Tilbury to avoid cutting their own throats by these Luddite activities? Is the right hon. Lady aware of the great tragedy it will be if this terminal goes overseas? Has any consideration been given to O.C.L. setting up headquarters in any other part of the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Castle: This situation is quite different from that with which the Tory Government were proposing to deal in their legislation. This is a question of getting acceptance on a new forward-looking agreement. This afternoon we should concentrate on trying to get a change of attitude, instead of hectoring and lecturing men who have the same interest as we have—to see that our ports flourish.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: If the one-employer principle is so vital to good organisation in London, why is it that the trade which London is now losing is going to ports which believe in a multiplicity of labour organisers?

Mrs. Castle: I am not convinced that the hon. Gentleman understands the position. Does he understand, for example, the advantages that flow in the form of more efficient practices where the one-employer principle operates? For example, at the Olsen berth, as a result of the one-employer principle being in operation, there can be complete inter-changeability between quay labour and ship labour, as anybody who knows anything about the docks will understand.

Mr. Mikardo: Has my right hon. Friend found her task in resolving this complex problem made easier by the extent to which some right hon. and hon.


Members opposite have sought to make party and anti-union propaganda out of this situation?

Mrs. Castle: I agree with my hon. Friend that on occasions when the House is discussing matters of sensitive industrial relations and very delicate problems of changing human attitudes hon. Members opposite are not very constructive in their approach.

OVERSEAS AID (FUTURE PROGRAMME)

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart): With the permission of the House, I would like to make a statement on the future programme for overseas aid.
The House will know that the Second United Nations Development Decade begins in January, 1971. Its purpose will be to help the developing world to achieve a faster rate of economic growth so that it may begin to have a fairer share of the growing wealth of the world. It is an objective supported in all parts of the House.
The Government believe it to be of great importance that, as a major donor country, with a high reputation for the quality and organisation and size of its aid programme, we should play our full part in this new development effort. Despite our economic difficulties, we have succeeded in maintaining official aid to the less developed countries at a high level during the life of this Government and we have greatly improved the terms of our aid in particular in the provision of interest-free loans.
We have now examined our programme for the first three years of the Decade, and our purpose for the whole of the Decade in relation to the new target of 1 per cent. of gross national product set by the Second U.N.C.T.A.D. conference and the particular recommendation of the Pearson Commission concerning this.
Last February, our White Paper on Public Expenditure gave estimates of £227 million for 1969–70 and of £235 million for 1970–71 for the total aid programme. Excluding the likely defence element in Britain's special aid to Singapore and Malaysia, this gives figures for

economic aid of about £219 million for 1969–70 and about £227 million for 1970–71.
The Government have now decided that in 1971–72 all economic aid will be consolidated into one official aid programme, and this will be increased from £227 million to £245 million, an increase of about £18 million. In 1972–73, it will be further increased to £265 million, an increase for the year of £20 million. In 1973–74, the last year of the present Public Expenditure Survey, the programme will accelerate by a further increase of £35 million to £300 million.
These figures, together with the defence element in our special aid to which I have referred, will produce total figures of £270 million for 1972–73 and £305 million for 1973–74, which will appear in the White Paper on Public Expenditure. These figures are in cash terms throughout and relate to gross disbursements.
These, then, are our decisions about the official aid programme up to 1973–74. This is the element of total financial flows from Britain for this period which the Government can determine and about which they can give a commitment. But private flows—that is, private investment and guaranteed export credits—are the second element in total flow, as it is reckoned in terms of the 1 per cent. G.N.P. target. Net private flows, as well as net official flows, count towards the target.
The volume of private flows is not determined by the Government, although it is influenced by Government policies. Their future level is difficult to predict, and one can make varying estimates of the possible course of private flows during the 1970s. Taking a high estimate for private flows, we could expect to reach the 1 per cent. target not much after the date of 1975 recommended by the Pearson Commission.
We recognise the element of uncertainty which is bound to attach to estimates of private flows six years' hence. So we shall keep the progress of both official and private flows under review. In any case, the Government intend, unless our balance of payments position should preclude it, to reach the target of 1 per cent. total flow not a moment later than the end of the Second Development Decade.
We seek the end of poverty wherever we find it—whether in the Britain we live in or the world we live in. [Laughter.] I should be sorry if any hon. Members found this a subject for any sort of amusement.
Hunger and disease recognise no national frontiers. No Government has a finer record than ours in the drive to end poverty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No Government has a finer record than ours in the drive to end poverty at home. In a renewed and strengthened international drive to end world poverty, I believe that our new aid programme can make a vital and effective contribution.
I thought it right to make this statement today, in view of the debate tomorrow. No doubt, a number of questions arising from it can be considered in the debate.

Mr. Braine: We shall, of course, debate the figures tomorrow, but we note that they are in cash terms and relate to gross disbursements, taking no account of capital repayments or likely movements in prices. Would it not have been much fairer, more honest and more realistic to express the figures in real terms? Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the figures mean that the Government feel unable to accept the Pearson recommendation that official aid should reach a level of 0·7 per cent. of G.N.P. by 1975?

Mrs. Hart: The hon. Gentleman will accept that, as we roll forward in our planning of public expenditure programmes, we shall move towards the later years of the 1970s. What I have said today relates to 1973–74 as the final date, covering the dates up to which our forward-rolling public expenditure programmes relate. That is what will be covered in the forthcoming White Paper. We shall wish to keep under review both official and private flows, and we shall very much have in mind the percentage of G.N.P. which official flows are then reaching.
As for the 0·7 per cent. target itself, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is at present a recommendation of the Pearson Commission, which will be the subject of a great deal of international discussion in which we shall engage ourselves in the coming year. What I have

said relates to the prime Pearson target of 1 per cent. total flow.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we have heavy business ahead.

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Lady said that the net flow of private investment to developing countries was not subject to ultimate control by the Government. Does she recognise that the hostility of Governments in such countries as India and Zambia to private British investment is harmful to the development of those countries? What representations is she making to such countries, as the taxpayers of this country ought not to be asked to subsidise the political instincts of their Governments?

Mrs. Hart: This is a complex question, as I am fully aware. I thought that it was necessary to make the statement today, in view of the debate tomorrow. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to discuss that matter during the debate.

Mr. Barnes: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the rate of increase which she has announced may mean that we shall not have achieved the Pearson target for official aid by as late as 1980? As the share of exports which Britain receives from all the aid which donor countries give is almost twice the share of the aid which we provide, does she not consider that quicker movement on our part towards the 0·7 per cent. target could be achieved without imposing any great burden upon us?

Mrs. Hart: I do not know how my hon. Friend measures fast movement. On the basis of the figures which I have announced, the rate of increase in official flow by the last year will be over 13 per cent., a very high rate of increase. Moreover, my hon. Friend would be wrong to assume that among the Pearson Commission targets—the Commission made many recommendations—the 0·7 per cent. target will not be in our mind. It certainly will. As I have said, we shall be discussing it in our international negotiations and reflections on Pearson over the coming year. What I have stated is that we are guaranteeing to reach the total 1 per cent. target, and we shall keep both kinds of flow very much in mind in order to do that.

Sir G. Sinclair: In view of the continuing decline since 1964 of official aid as percentage of our gross national product, does not the Minister consider her statement extremely disappointing? If, on the basis of that performance, she is relying largely on the private sector to make up for failures to allocate Government funds, what does she intend to do about encouraging private investment overseas, either by insurance or by tax proposals?

Mrs. Hart: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's deep concern about these matters —he is well known for it—but I put this to him. If he thinks that, after all our balance of payments difficulties in the last two or three years, to achieve a rate of increase in official flows by 1973–74 of over 13 per cent., taking the whole economic aid programme up to £300 million, is disappointing, I can only say that his view will not be shared by the developing countries or by the other major donor countries with which we shall discuss these matters.

Mr. Prentice: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the figures which she has announced are not consistent with reaching the 0·7 per cent. Pearson target by 1975 or, indeed, projected forward, consistent with reaching it by 1980? Will she accept—and will she persuade the Cabinet to accept, which is more to the point—that those of us who want to see a proper British effort in this direction will not now be satisfied with anything less than the Pearson targets? In view of the improvement in our economic situation, we could and should afford to do that and announce that we shall.

Mrs. Hart: My right hon. Friend, who has been very much engaged in these matters as my predecessor, will recognise that the context of this decision has moved forward considerably from the point at which he left it. Equally, I think that he will recognise that the Pearson Commission target relates to 1 per cent. total flow and 0·7 per cent. official flow, and, in relation to that, 1980 is the latest date at which Pearson hopes that people will move towards it.
My right hon. Friend will also recognise, as will the House, that, in planning

public expenditure, one pushes it forward over a planned period, and, as we move on in later years, we shall begin to look at 1974–75 and beyond—indeed, we should be looking at 1974–75 next year —and in relation to that we can then pursue the question of a further rate of increase beyond 1973–74.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not my right hon. Friend acknowledge that France is already achieving the target set by the Pearson Commission, and that West Germany has made clear its determination to reach it? Is it not unsatisfactory that we are not clearly accepting the target?

Mrs. Hart: West Germany has a particular factor of a very large private flow, and there are many circumstances affecting other countries. Having had a period when we could not increase the aid programme as rapidly as we would have wanted, because of our balance of payments difficulties, we are now pulling it up and reaching a considerable rate of increase over the next three or four years.

Mr. John Hall: Will the right hon. Lady remind the House of the percentage of the gross national product represented by Government aid now, and say what the percentage will be in 1973–74 of the then estimated gross national product?

Mrs. Hart: I cannot give a precise answer, because we do not have precise figures about G.N.P. in future years, though we make some assumptions about its growth. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, in answer to the first part of his question, that we now stand, as I have said in answer to questions, at about 0·4 per cent. in official flow.

Mr. Pardoe: Can the right hon. Lady confirm that net British aid, after capital repayments and interest payments, has fallen by an average of 3 per cent. since 1961 and that her statement means that it will continue to fall at that rate in the years covered by her statement?

Mrs. Hart: No, Sir. Certainly not. I do not agree with that at all.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall debate this tomorrow.

TEN-MINUTE RULE BILLS (NOTICES OF MOTION)

Mr. Parker: On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member who arrived first at the Public Bill Office today put in 70 Ten-Minute Rule Bills, thus taking all the possible available time until December, 1970, if the Session lasts that long?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on a serious issue.

Mr. Parker: What action can be taken to remedy this outrageous abuse of our procedure?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice this morning, when he came to see me in company with a number of his colleagues, that he intended to raise as a point of order the practice in the Public Bill Office governing the giving of notice for Motions for leave to bring in Bills under the Ten-Minute Rule.
As the House knows, applications for the right to introduce Bills under the Ten-Minute Rule on future dates were made at 10 o'clock this morning at the Public Bill Office. I have been informed that one hon. Member, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), arrived at a somewhat earlier hour than his fellow Members, and, when the office opened, put his name down for a future date together with the names of 70 other Members who had requested him to act for them for future dates.
In consequence, Members who had also arrived very early, and who next sought to set their names down for future dates, found that under the rules of the House there was little opportunity left for them through the whole of the Session.
I know that it is often the practice of Members in tabling Motions and dealing generally with the business of the House, to hand in not only their own names, but those of their fellow Members, and under the rules of the House as they stand there is nothing in the letter of the law with which the hon. Member for Tiverton has not complied. Whether he has observed the spirit of the law is a matter

which I can leave only to the determination of the House. Mr. Speaker has no power to vary at his own discretion the rules which the House has laid down.
All that I can rule now, therefore, is that the present procedure for receiving notice of Motions for Ten-Minute Rule Bills was observed. It is for the House, not Mr. Speaker, to change the rules if that course would seem desirable.

Mr. MacDermot: On a point of order. As one who was present this morning, Mr. Speaker, may I with the greatest respect submit that you have been misinformed on a material point about what took place.
Before coming to that, may I, on the mere legal question of the construction of Standing Orders, ask whether you have considered the wording of Standing Order No. 5(8), as well as the wording of Standing Order No. 13. Standing Order No. 13 is extremely vague and does not indicate, because the passive tense is used, which hon. Member should hand in the notice of Motion. But in my submission Standing Order No. 5(8) is worded in such a way as to carry with it the necessary implication that the notice of Motion to the Public Bill Office must be handed in by the hon. Member who is seeking the leave of the House. If you have not had time to consider that point, Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully ask that you might consider it further.
May I turn now to the question of what actually took place. You said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, that you had been informed that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said that the hon. Members in whose names he was purporting to hand in notices of Motion had requested him to put in their names. The hon. Gentleman, as we would expect of him, was very frank, and when we raised this question in the presence of the Clerk of Public Bills he conceded that only one of the 70 Members had personally requested him to do so, and he named that hon. Member. He added that some other hon. Members had signed the piece of paper which he handed in. It transpired later that they number three out of the 70. I think that another hon. Member present in the room who had in previous conversation protested against the proposed conduct himself hurriedly added his name to the piece of paper.
The matter did not end there. Another hon. Member who was present had said to a number of others before the Clerk of Public Bills came in that he was unaware that his name was on the list of names to be handed in by the hon. Member for Tiverton, and said that he had not given authority to anyone for the hon. Member for Tiverton to do so. When I repeated this to the Clerk of Public Bills there was no denial that that had been stated. Another hon. Member whose name was among the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman will make his point briefly.

Mr. MacDermot: I appreciate the lateness of the hour, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I am trying to state these facts as briefly as I can.
As I have said, I submit, with respect, that you have been misinformed, Mr. Speaker, and I conceive it my duty to lay what I believe to be the true facts before you and the House as quickly as possible.
Another hon. Member whose name is on the list informed a number of us that he had given authority to three of his hon. Friends to hand in a Motion in his name, but that the hon. Member for Tiverton was not one of those three. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that an agent has no power to authorise another agent; he cannot pass on the agency. So none of those three hon. Members was able to authorise the hon. Member for Tiverton to act for that hon. Member.
A number of hon. Members who arrived shortly before 10 o'clock and whose names were on the list were patently unaware that their names were on the list of the hon. Member for Tiverton, and said so. When the attention of the Clerk of Public Bills was drawn to this matter, he said that he could not question the honesty of the hon. Member for Tiverton, but that the hon. Member had stated himself that he did not consider that in any way would his honesty be impugned if the Clerk ruled against him on the admitted fact which I have stated.
In my respectful submission, this did not amount to the position you were apparently informed about—namely, that the hon. Member stated that these other hon. Members had requested him to act on their behalf. I suggest that this matter

needs very more thorough investigation and that it would be quite wrong to allow the whole of private Members' time until next December to be pre-empted on the basis of transactions such as this.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) for giving me notice that he intended to raise this matter.
First of all, I intended to queue myself through the night in order to secure a favourable position for the Bill I have given notice of. I then inquired of the Public Bill Office whether I could as well give notice on behalf of other hon. Members to save them the ordeal of sitting through the night—an ordeal which no other hon. Members availed themselves of—and was informed that I could give notice for any other hon. Members wishing to give notice of Bills and that there was no limit on the number. That is the quite specific answer I got to a quite specific question put to the quite specific authority for ruling on these matters.
I did then queue throughout the night without any other hon. Member, from either the Government benches or the Liberal bench, being present.

Mr. Roebuck: The hon. Gentleman should get married.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have asked for brevity. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) must now come to 10 o'clock this morning.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I did not quite catch that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I asked the hon. Gentleman to come to the question of what happened at 10 o'clock this morning.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It was not until after 8 o'clock this morning that any hon. Member from the Government or Liberal benches put in an appearance. When 10 o'clock came, I handed in, first, my own Bill, and gave notice of it, and then a considerable number of Bills in the names of hon. Friends who wished notice to be given of their intention. Without exception, they had either given the Bills to me themselves or the Bills had been given to me with concrete assurances that it was their wish.
It was at that point that there was a certain amount of discussion with the


Clerk of Public Bills, because the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North raised the question whether a commission or request to give in a notice can, as it were, be sub-contracted. I did indeed say that, if the Clerk ruled against me, so be it. The hon. and learned Gentleman has half reported a number of conversations, but without naming their originators, some of whom are present, so that they cannot speak for themselves as to whether his report is accurate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are important debates ahead. I have asked both sides in this controversy to speak briefly.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: In view of your appeal for brevity, Mr. Speaker, if you wish I shall not continue answering specific points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but will merely conclude by saying that it was a case where the early bird got the worm and that the frustration of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who preferred to spend the night in bed, is understandable in the circumstances rather than commendable.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I hope to save the time of the House. I take the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) that this matter should be investigated. The Select Committee on Procedure is being set up and will be available. I believe that this matter should be examined by that Committee.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that I have ruled that what happened conformed with the letter of the law. Whether it conformed with the spirit of the law is a matter for the House. The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) submitted further legal arguments to me. I have looked at Standing Order No. 5(8). It does not deny the interpretation which the Clerk placed on it.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing in the Standing Order that deals with the extraordinary situation that arises when this House has a "nut case" on its hands. Last Friday, we were discussing whether

there was decreasing esteem for this place. I want to charge you that you must protect the House against this sort of thing. With great respect, it is not so much a matter of the decision you gave on the best knowledge available to you up to the time my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) spoke, but the fact that, that statement having been made by an hon. Member, we all expect to be believed.
In such circumstances, you must surely look again at this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have rather more respect for the Chair than most people. I am not speaking in the imperative sense to Mr. Speaker in person. I am speaking in the imperative inasmuch as, the argument having been put, Mr. Speaker, as the servant of the House, is under an obligation to the House.
Our procedure will be made a laughing stock for another year. What the Leader of the House says is no good at all. What we are saying, with great respect, is that if your Ruling stands, Mr. Speaker, we must bow to it, but the Leader of the House has a flat duty to put a Motion on the Order Paper today.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has answered his own earlier point of order. The Chair can only rule whether something is in order. I said much earlier that if what has happened does not conform to the spirit of the Standing Order, it is for the House to determine what it should do.

Dr. Winstanley: Has it been brought to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that it has been widely stated, as a justification for this disreputable act, that Liberal hon. Members had decided to act similarly? May I, on this point of order, say that, while this suggestion was made outside the House by someone unconnected with the House, it was utterly and unanimously rejected by the Parliamentary Liberal Party as being improper, a gross interference with private Member's business and an action more characteristic of Conservative hon. Members than of Liberals—

Mr. Speaker: Order—

Dr. Winstanley: My point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Dr. Winstanley: Since this position will now clearly lead to retaliatory action, which could bring the House into disrepute, is there nothing that you can do, Mr. Speaker, to restore the position?

Mr. Speaker: On the first issue, I have no indication of what goes on in the minds of Liberals, or Conservatives, or Socialists at all. On the second point, the fact remains that if things remain as they are all the time for Ten-Minute Rule Bills for the whole of this year and all of next year, I believe, to Christmas, will have been preempted—

Mr. Mendelson: What does the Leader of the Opposition think?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether the House itself will take action to alter that in some sort of way is a matter for the House, but the hon. Member is right to say that action of this kind might automatically lead to retaliatory action of some kind or other.

Mr. William Hamilton: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? You have given a Ruling based on information which you have received, presumably from the Clerk of the House and from the Clerk in the Public Bill Office. Some of us disagree with that Ruling and we can presumably take necessary action by a Motion on the Paper. Presumably, also, the Leader of the House can take action. He will know very well that the Procedure Committee recommended that Ten-Minute Rule Bills be taken at the end of the day's proceedings. That might be a fruitful field for his researches.
But has the fact been drawn to your attention, Sir, that an Opposition Whip was involved in the exercise this morning, so presumably the Opposition as a whole were involved? Unless the Leader of the Opposition gets up and denies specifically all knowledge of it, we must assume that the Opposition as a whole were involved in what is essentially a private Member's exercise.
This is a very serious matter. It is bound to lead to retaliatory action. I am inclined to congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-

Hyslop), as I am sorry that I did not think of it first. But there will come a time, no doubt. Retaliatory action can be taken in this and other fields—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Yes. In the meantime, it is quite clear that, whatever the letter of the law might be, whatever the letter of the Standing Order might be, there has been a serious infringement of its spirit. The House should take serious note of that.
Perhaps I could suggest to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that he now freezes the position as it is until such time as he and the House alter Standing Orders to ensure that this time is not pre-empted until December, 1970, or whenever it is, that we start from the beginning again, and that the Standing Order is so amended as to prevent an hon. Member from presenting a Bill for anyone other than himself.
I doubt very much whether the Clerk in the Public Bill Office has the authority to accept the oral word of one hon. Member that he is speaking on behalf of another 70. There is very strong prima facie evidence that he was doing nothing of the kind. There is a conflict of evidence here. It is no good Mr. Speaker or the Clerks or anyone else saying that this or that is their interpretation of the Standing Orders. We are sovereign. We shall decide, by Motion or otherwise, what the interpretation of these Standing Orders is. If there is an abuse of them, the remedy stands in our own hands.

Mr. Speaker: The remedy stands, if there is an abuse of the Standing Order, in changing the Standing Order to make what the hon. Member alleges to be an abuse impossible. But the administering of the rules of the House is in the hands of the Chair until those rules are changed.
On the earlier part of the hon. Member's question, Mr. Speaker was aware of all the facts which have emerged during this discussion, including what the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) told the House this afternoon. These things were told to me when a group of Members of Parliament brought their complaint to me this morning. I hope that we can now get on—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This problem will not be solved this afternoon—[HON. MEMBERS: "It must be."]—inside the House. All that the Chair can rule is on the matter of order, and that I have already done.

Mr. Iremonger: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). I personally arrived at the House at a quarter to six this morning and handed to my hon. Friend my own signed Bill and he handed it in for me. Therefore, it is quite wrong for his integrity to be impugned by hon. Members opposite—

Hon. Members: Oh…

Mr. Speaker: Order. Things are difficult enough as it is. No one has impugned anyone's integrity.

Mr. Darling: May I ask, on this unfortunate episode, whether you would have authority, Mr. Speaker, to give precedence to Bills which are presented to the House under Standing Order No. 37, so that the Bills which have been put down, rightly or wrongly, by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) would not be taken on the days for which they have been put down?

Mr. Speaker: I will certainly look into that.

Dame Irene Ward: I have been a member of the Select Committee on Procedure for very many years and I have been aware of the Standing Order which governs the handing in of Private Members' Bills under the Ten-Minute Rule. I also had a Bill which I hope will be taken in the House, in due course, because I have asked for it and I think that I have a right to do it.
The point is, as I know perfectly well, that the situation is unsatisfactory: the whole House and you, Mr. Speaker, will agree with that. But the House is very much indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell Hyslop), because, by his activities and his honourable dealings in this House— [Laughter.] It is no good anyone laughing: I am prepared to stand here until the House rises unless I am allowed to have my say.
I was saying that I think that the House is indebted to my hon. Friend, because, as he is an hon. Member of this

House and always acts in an honourable way, he has, by his action, drawn the attention of the House to the need for a reform of this Standing Order. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for having done that. When people come to look at the history of these times, it will be a great pity if they think that this House, in these difficult days, could not take a victory in the way in which it has been achieved.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Orme: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Tiverton will appreciate the compliment which the hon. Lady has paid to him.

Mr. John Mendelson: There are only two brief points to which, in my submission, you have not yet replied, Mr. Speaker. One was the material point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) when he asked you, Mr. Speaker, whether in considering this matter, not only now, but ever since it was brought to your notice earlier in the day, you had been aware that, as we have now heard from the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) himself, not all hon. Members gave their names to him directly but that there was an intermediate agent, who I understand to be one of the official Opposition Whips, namely, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More).

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, I have already dealt with that point. I have told the House that the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) informed me this morning, as he informed me this afternoon, of the very point which the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) has made and I said that that did not affect my Ruling.

Mr. Mendelson: My second point concerns the advice which you, Mr. Speaker, have given the House that the way in which to deal with this situation is to change the Standing Orders. This leaves the House in a most unsatisfactory situation. It is the job of all hon. Members to protect the standing of the House in the country. I say this without any unfriendliness towards the hon. Gentleman


concerned, as he well knows, but surely it is not possible to say that only one party will from now on have the right to submit Private Members' Bills and to defend that in the country.
I therefore invite the Leader of the Opposition, who often addresses the House on the dignity and standing of Parliament—and I put the same question to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—whether he can combine it with his responsibility to leave us for the next 12 months as a laughing stock in the country and allow people to think that the House of Commons cannot conduct its affairs in a manner in which a stamp collecting society would be able to conduct its affairs.
This is not a matter for retaliation; that would be the worst possible way out. Neither side of the House should be childish about it. An escapade has been originated by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). He has had his laugh, but now it is for the leaders of the main parties to get together and to ask him to abandon this nonsense and to start de novo. This would be in accordance with the dignity of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The House will have noted with interest the words which the hon. Gentleman has addressed to it.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of business ahead of us.

Mr. Turton: Is not what is happening now becoming an abuse of the procedure of the House? The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), quite properly, asked you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. You gave your Ruling and subsequent questions either must be aimed at challenging that Ruling or directed to the Leader of the House to take control of the situation. It would be better to leave this matter until a later date, when the Leader of the House can make his own suggestions and, I hope, arrange a debate on this matter.

Mr. Peart: I would have hoped that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) would withdraw. The Leader of the Opposition could use his influence in that direction. On the other hand, I said that there should be a further investigation. I agreed with my hon.

and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot). Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) holds a different view, I believe that this problem should be the first business of the Select Committee on Procedure, which will be set up tomorrow.

Mr. Heath: I rise formally to support what the Leader of the House has said—that this matter should be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure. I well recall the early days of the 1951 Parliament when a group of hon. Members below the Gangway who were then in opposition, led by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and ably supported by the then hon. Member for Hornchurch and the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), who is still with us, organised Ten-Minute Rule Bills for their own party purposes by putting down sufficient Bills on one day to preclude all other Government business.
We readily agreed that we were outwitted and the matter was referred to the Select Committee on Procedure, as a result of which the rule was made that not more than one Ten-Minute Rule Bill could be put down on one day.
Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite and those on the Liberal benches will now admit that they have been outwitted on this occasion. You, Mr. Speaker, knowing all the facts, have said that nothing out of order has been done. I am sorry if hon. Members opposite cannot admit that they have been outwitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I agree with the Leader of the House that this matter should be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure. I am confident that we can find a solution to this problem.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House has said that this matter should be considered by the Select Committee on Procedure. I have listened to a wide cross-section of views on all the issues which have been raised. I must move to the next business.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Ian Lloyd. A point of order.

TILBURY DOCKS (CONTAINER BERTHS)

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the consequences of the decision by the Tilbury dockers to maintain their ban on the handling of containers.
You, Mr. Speaker, require evidence that this matter is specific, important and urgent—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Motions under Standing Order No. 9 are important.

Mr. Lloyd: —and, moreover, that it falls within the scope of Ministerial action.
This is a specific decision by a specific group of dockers not to use specified container handling techniques. The location is specific: it is in Tilbury. Moreover, this decision will create—and perhaps this is more important—the first specific instance within my knowledge of a new and massively damaging type of artificial industrial obsolescence.
The matter is important because the maritime transport industries of this country have recently invested well in excess of £100 million to adapt themselves to what is possibly the most serious challenge which they have faced in a century. They have done this to re-establish a British lead in a sphere in which Britain still has a lead. They have done it to continue the contribution which these industries make to our balance of payments in time of peace and to our survival in war.
It is important not merely because a substantial proportion of this national investment—and it is a national investment—has been sterilised for at least two years by this action, the real question is whether this country, perilously dependent on the proper deployment of its national resources, can tolerate a precedent of this kind succeeding. If it succeeds, the whole range of technical innovation, not merely in the docks, will be placed at the mercy of new, self-appointed apostles of obstruction.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman must not discuss the

merits of what he will discuss if his application is successful.

Mr. Lloyd: I was merely emphasising that, if these decisions are allowed to succeed, a specific group of individuals, olympian in their disregard of the national interest, in their scorn of industrial negotiations, can destroy national institutions.

Mr. John Lee: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: It is not usual to have a point of order during a Standing Order No. 9 application.

Mr. Lee: With respect, Mr. Speaker, you have already told the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) that he should not argue the merits of this case. Surely he is indulging in polemics which have nothing to do with his case.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker is endeavouring to see that when an hon. Member makes a submission under Standing Order No. 9 he makes it properly.

Mr. Lloyd: To continue the specific points—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must hear the specific point before I know whether or not it is in order.

Mr. Lloyd: It is a specific fact that this type of decision and obstruction is taken by this type of individual—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking leave that we may break into the debate of the House set out m the Order Paper. If he succeeds in obtaining leave, he may make the point he has made and many others. For the moment, he has to convince the House and the Chair that his application is a justifiable one.

Mr. Lloyd: I shall move immediately to the question of importance. This situation has presented a direct and formidable challenge to the Government— [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member is reading."]—whose responsibility it is to ensure—

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members who are jealous of their own rights under Standing Order No. 9 and attack free speech must accord it to others.

Mr. Delargy: On a point of order. I respect the rights of hon. Members as well as anyone else, but the hon. Member has read every single word.

Mr. Speaker: It is not unknown in this House, although it is always discouraged, for hon. Members to read every word of what they say.

Mr. John Mendelson: Further to that point of order. Under Standing Order No. 9, as you rightly say, Mr. Speaker, we must all observe each other's rights, but if an hon. Member wishes to blacken the reputation of a group of men and makes use of Standing Order No. 9 procedure purely for that purpose, having written his imputations against a group of workmen before he submits his Standing Order application, he is abusing the Orders of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has expressed his opinion.

Mr. Lloyd: Hon. Members may or may not read some of their speeches, but I defy them to read a speech which is in note form.
It is the duty of Governments to preserve the legitimate and constitutional processes of this country. These have been frustrated by dark and devious threats

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker is grateful to hon. Gentlemen for helping him. The hon. Gentleman must observe the method of applying under Standing Order No. 9. He has heard many applications submitted to the House. He cannot make the speech that he will make if he obtains his application under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Lloyd: I will now turn to the urgency of this matter. It is urgent because it is costing the country a minimum of £14,000 a day. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would willingly like to have £14,000 to spend either on their schools or on teachers' salaries.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not interrupt his own submission.

Mr. Lloyd: It is urgent because immediate action, and nothing but immediate action, may prevent the loss of the

total United Kingdom—Australian trade to Antwerp. I submit that this is a question of considerable importance. Nothing in my submission is more urgent than a direct and contemptuous challenge to the whole apparatus and procedure whereby progress and industrial agreement are achieved in this country.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair is grateful, but the Chair can manage. The hon. Gentleman must not digress into the merits. We are not debating Tilbury. The hon. Gentleman is asking Mr. Speaker to allow him to suspend the business of the day so that he might debate it.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order. If the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Lang-stone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) would be so good as to hand me his script I will promise to prompt him rather better than he is reading it.

Mr. Speaker: That is a foolish attempt at a point of order.

Mr. Lloyd: On the final question of responsibility, it is my submission that this is quite definitely within the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who is not here. It is within his responsibility because this matter affects the whole country, every family in the country. It is within his responsibility because, for the last two years, the authority of every Department of the State has been diminished by these actions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is clean out of order now.

Mr. Lloyd: Without wishing in any way discourteously to anticipate your decision, Mr. Speaker, if the matter which I have raised this afternoon is not a matter specific, urgent and important, then the English language has lost some of its meaning, and the appropriate comment on Parliament is that of a requiem mass.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whatever the noise is doing, it is not defending the English language.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) was courteous enough to inform me that he might seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House today.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the consequences of the Tilbury dockers' decision to maintain their ban on the handling of containers".
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Standing Order, but to give no reasons for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations of the hon. Member and to all that happened previously on this matter this afternoon, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Maclennan: Mr. Maclennan rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to take further points of order on an issue which I have already ruled several times.

Mr. Wellbeloved: We are in some difficulty, Mr. Speaker. We accept your guidance on all matters, but this afternoon we have witnessed an unsual situation. First, in the opinion of many hon. Members on this side of the House, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd), who invoked Standing-Order No. 9, did so in a manner which we believe was an abuse of procedure. Secondly, could you advise me under what paragraphs of the Standing Orders of the procedure of the House you yourself, Sir, derive the power to refuse to listen to any other submissions on that particular matter?

Mr. Speaker: On the second matter, the power of the Speaker to refuse points of order on the same issue after he has ruled for a certain time is a power of long standing.
On the first point of order raised by the hon. Gentleman, I was aware that

the hon. Member for Langstone was irregularly moving his application for Standing Order No. 9 and, with the help of some hon. Members in the House, I called his attention to the fact from time to time.

Mr. Maclennan: Mr. Maclennan rose—

Mr. Speaker: I have told the hon. Gentleman that I cannot take a point of order on the issue which we have discussed already.

Mr. MacLennan: I respect your Ruling entirely, Mr. Speaker, but would ask you how hon. Members can be protected in a situation which has arisen when there appears to be a direct conflict of evidence about facts on which Mr. Speaker makes—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going back. He must take the matter up in some other way. There is no conflict of facts.

Mr. Maclennan: Mr. Maclennan rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman himself is one of those who advised me on the facts of the case this morning. I know all about them. This is a matter for Parliament to resolve. It is not however to be solved by repeating points of order.

Mr. Maclennan: Mr. Maclennan rose—

Mr. Doig: Mr. Doig rose—

Mr. Speaker: I will take no further points of order on that issue. Hon. Gentlemen must resume their seats.

Mr. Roebuck: Mr. Speaker, you have referred to some facts which have been put before you. Is it possible for the rest of the House to have information about those facts, since many hon. Members know nothing about them?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is going back to the issue. The facts were placed before the House during the submissions.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — £50 TRAVEL ALLOWANCE

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to increase the £50 travel allowance.
It has taken some time and a considerable journey to reach this subject. I am afraid that our time now available for debate will be very much truncated. Therefore, I will try to compress my remarks and make them as brief and concise as I can, since I know many hon. Members on both sides wish to take part.
Our argument is that the present £50 travel allowance is absurd, unfair, humiliating and unjustified. It is absurd because it is the only remaining restriction virtually speaking on citizens of this country who want to spend their money on foreign goods and services. It is unfair because it is full of anomalies and falls in different ways on different individuals. It is humiliating because it means that the British traveller abroad is regarded either as a poor relation or as a wangler who gets round his own country's regulations. It is unjustified because the Government have never been able to produce any convincing figures at all to justify the continuation of the restriction.
I have had some personal experience in this matter as a tourist, and I must declare an interest as chairman of a group of companies one of which is engaged in selling packaged holidays on a large scale to the broad public in this country. I have also twice in the Treasury been engaged in the business of trying to make the exchange control work. I therefore know a good deal from various points of view about the realities of the situation.
We are not saying that there should be a total abolition of all exchange control. I hope that the time will come when that

can happen, but at the moment there clearly is a continuing need for control on capital movements. But the £50 allowance has nothing whatever to do with the control of capital movements. It is feasible, as the Chancellor will know, and as was the case before the £50 restriction came in, in practice to allow a total freedom of current expenditure on holidays without allowing loopholes to occur in the capital movement control. One could go back to the old system of £250 or more if people could justify that they wanted to spend it on a holiday and not as a subterfuge to get capital out of the country.
We are not saying that there should now be complete abolition of exchange control, but a complete abolition of effective control of people in spending as much of their own money as they want to spend on holidays abroad. It is as simple as that.
I come to my first point as to why the present restriction is absurd. It is quite ridiculous, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows it. There is no other limit at all in practical terms on what people can spend on foreign goods and services, all of which cost foreign exchange. When something is on open general licence the foreign exchange must be provided automatically. One can order anything one likes from any country in the world and get the money from one's bank.
One can order a fleet of Mercedes 600s or fill a swimming pool with Bollinger, but one cannot spend more than £50 on visiting other countries. If one does, the Treasury will come down upon the individual and say that it is wrong, bad for the balance of payments and contrary to law. Apart from this one retricted area, everything else is free. Surely it is an absurd situation.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Not so.

Mr. Maudling: Those are the facts, and they certainly throw up a nonsense. Let us take an extreme example. Suppose a right hon. Gentleman opposite was on a visit to Paris and his wife wanted to buy herself a dress. He would have to say, "I am sorry, I cannot provide you with the finance to buy the dress now, but you can ring your bank


in England, arrange for it to be imported there and then flown out on the next aircraft." That is perfectly legal and there is no objection to that at all. It is a foolish situation that the travel allowance is the only form of expenditure of foreign exchange by an individual that is now cut back by the law.
It is also completely unfair. It is unfair because it affects the man who chooses to spend his money on holidays and travel rather than other things. It affects the man who prefers to spend his money on French scenery rather than on French wine because the one is limited and the other is not. The restriction is an advantage to those who prefer group travel, which often can be cheaper. But many people do not prefer group travel. They prefer to go round on their own, to see things for themselves and to decide their own holiday. Why should they be penalised?
Then there are special concessions which give rise to anomalies. If one wants to go to see the World Cup football matches in Mexico one can take £150. But if one wants to see the remains of the Maya civilisation at Yucatan, one can take only £50. What is the rational and how could it be justified?
What about people who have friends and relatives abroad. Such people can go and stay abroad with them. You can stay with your aunt in the South of France and she can then stay with you in England. So long as it is a spontaneous agreement there is no objection, but if it is a "compensation deal" it becomes criminal. How can this make any sense?
I doubt whether even the Government understand some of the consequences of this restriction. I am sure that the public do not understand them. Suppose somebody wants to travel in America and Australia. If he goes direct to America he can take only £50, but if he goes to Australia he can take all the money he likes. I think I am right in saying that the Australian regulations allow a traveller to take about 3,000 dollars out of Australia to America. What is the British citizen to do in such circumstances?
What about the position of coins? Is it not a fact that, although the law controls notes abroad, there is no law to deal

with the carrying of new 10s. pieces abroad. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman from experience, though not my personal experience, that casino chips, cashable in many places in France, are not currency and, therefore, are not subject to exchange control. That fact came out years ago when we tried to enforce exchange control in a particular case.
All these are examples of the absurdity of the system which, to some extent, is inherent in any exchange control but which becomes really damaging because of the limit imposed at present. The subterfuges to which people resort arise because of the limit, which is totally unjustified.
Then there is the fact, which must not be ignored, that it is a humiliation. Anyone who goes outside the sterling area and is in company with German, Belgian, Swedish, Finnish or Danish tourists—

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): French?

Mr. Maudling: I know that the French get only £70 at the moment, but I think that that is the only example of any substance which the Chief Secretary can quote.
The British tourist abroad is regarded by people from many other countries as an object of sympathy. I find nothing more galling in this life than the sympathy of one's foreign friends. I do not like to have their sympathy, especially in this instance. Either they say that the poor British cannot afford what anyone else can afford, or they say that if a British tourist appears to be affording it, he must be getting round his Government's restrictions.
No one will believe that the recovery of this country's balance of payments is soundly based so long as the Government maintain the control, quite contrary to the spirit of the International Monetary Fund and copied by so few other countries.
My fourth point is that it is unjustified. The figures quoted by the Government when they refer to a £25 million saving on the balance of payments are not substantial figures. In the first place, there is the technical point that they are gross and not net. They take no account of the amount that people would spend at


home if they did not go abroad and the fact that a lot of it would go on imported goods.
Secondly, they ignore the reflex effects of it. The Minister will find that people in the tourist and hotel industry will assure him categorically that the maintenance of our £50 restriction limits the willingness of travel agents in other countries to encourage people to come here. I hat cuts down our ability to expand tourism into this country, which I am glad to see is rising fast but which could rise much faster.
Thirdly, the £50 limit leads to an artificial dislocation of investment in the tourist industry in that hotels are being built in the sterling area which may and the future very difficult when the limit is removed.
The figures are wholly unreliable because they are based on a sample. They cannot be based on anything else. How does the Treasury know how much people spend when they go abroad? Anyone going to a country in the sterling area does not have to declare it and can take as much as he likes. Incidentally, the Government are inconsistent on this. When they talk about investment or defence expenditures, it is the United Kingdom balance of payments which matters. When they talk about the travel allowance, it is the sterling area balance of payments which matters. A lot of people who might spend £100 in France spend £500 in the Bahamas. Are the Government concerned about the United Kingdom or the sterling area balance?
If a company wants to invest in Australia, very often it cannot do so. If a man wants to go to Australia for a holiday, he can do what he likes. That is another example of the absurdity arising from the present situation.
Coming to the other half of the expenditure, which is expenditure outside the sterling area, how can the Government have reliable figures? It is common knowledge that this is a control which is widely evaded. From sampling techniques asking people questions, how can the Government expect to get accurate answers about what people are spending? No one will admit that he is spending more than he should be. Therefore whenever the Government rely, as they

do, on asking sample questions, they are not getting figures which can be regarded as reliable in any sense.
I hope that the Chief Secretary will deal with this in his reply and that, for the benefit of the House, he will say how these figures are compounded, where they come from, whether they are crosschecked and how accurate, in true statistical terms, they can be regarded.
Those, therefore, are my four points. I am truncating my argument because of the compression of time for the debate. The present travel allowance is absurd because it is the only remaining restriction on expenditure on foreign goods and services. It is wholly unfair in its incidence on different individuals. It is humiliating for Britons travelling abroad. It is unjustified by any economic considerations.
What are the excuses that the Government may give? I see in The Times that it is suggested that they may argue that the £50 limit is good because it makes cheaper travel available to the mass of the British people. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not say that, because it is arrant nonsense. What has brought down the cost of package tours is the fiercely competitive conditions in the industry. The one thing which keeps up the price is the Government's regulations. If the Board of Trade realised this, cheap holidays could become even cheaper. The Government have done nothing to bring down prices. On the contrary, they are keeping up prices. I hope that we shall not hear the argument foreshadowed tentatively in The Times.
The other argument which is sometimes heard from the benches opposite is the pernicious one that the restriction does not matter because it affects only a few and that the average man does not want to spend more than £50 abroad. Leaving aside the fact that there are as many above as there are below an average, it is surely an iniquitous argument to say that people should be restricted in spending their own money simply because they are in the minority. I ask the Government to repudiate that argument, which is a favourite one among some of their colleagues below the Gangway.
How can it be argued that the restriction on an individual to spend foreign


exchange in one way is justified because there are only a few who want to do it? There is no limit on anyone in this country spending as much as he likes on foreign motor cars, wine, food, or anything else. He has a complete call on the foreign exchange resources of the Bank of England. He is only restricted when he wants to go overseas and spend some of his money.
This is a restriction which stands out like a sore thumb as an absurdity. I hope that the Government will sweep it away.

5.28 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) for dealing with his argument so briefly in view of the short time at our disposal, and I shall endeavour to respond. However, he is asking me to make the case for the Government. I shall listen carefully to the points made in the debate and, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, at the end of the debate I shall reply shortly to the questions put to me.
Let me deal first with the right hon. Gentleman's fourth point. I accept that this restriction has to be justified, and it has to be justified both internationally and internally.
The international justification is that which has to be made both to the I.M.F. and the O.E.C.D., which have precise regulations about this kind of restriction. In both cases, the United Kingdom has complied scrupulously with the requirements, and both organisations have accepted the restrictions. E.F.T.A. does not require specific undertakings of this kind, but it is interesting to note that those E.F.T.A. countries which are members of the two organisations to which I have referred have not raised any objection. Nor has any other member country. It is accepted internationally that we have been perfectly justified in what we have been doing.
It is not correct to say that there is any danger of retaliation. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, retaliation is not a matter of individual proposals. It is a matter of a country satisfying the I.M.F. or the O.E.C.D., as France has done, that it is entitled to put a restric-

tion on travel in this way, always assuming that most of its visitors come from countries which are members of the two organisations.
There is no doubt that in terms of international obligation we are fully justified in what we are doing. But the right hon. Gentleman concentrated more on the internal justification. I hope to satisfy him about that by comparing the hardship suffered by the individual with the benefit accruing to the community. I will deal with hardship first. I am alleging that there is no hardship at all. For illness, business and educational needs, a special allowance is given on a generous scale. We are really concerned about the effect of this limitation on holidaymaking. I know that these figures have been gone into before, but I should like to put them before the House in a commonsensical way.
Let us consider the average man with a wife and two children who is contemplating a holiday abroad. He will first have to take into account the cost of his journey. If he goes by air it will, on average, be £200 for the four of them. If he goes by rail and ship, it will probably be £100. Those figures are additional to the allowance. The allowance is £50, plus £15 in sterling notes which he is legally entitled to take out and to exchange abroad. So he will be entitled to spend four times £65—£260—plus £100 or £200, as the case may be. So an average man taking his family abroad will be contemplating whether he can spend either £360 or £460 before considering whether there is any limitation.
It must be within everybody's experience—I think it must be well within the experience of my hon. Friends—that spending £460 out of taxed income on a single summer holiday is something which many people would wish they were able to do but are totally incapable of doing. Therefore, I suggest that there is no hardship, because in the average case it is not a question of exchange limitation, but a question of the bank account which determines how much is spent.

Mr. Maudling: The Chief Secretary has misunderstood my point. I was concerned with freedom, not hardship.

Mr. Diamond: The right hon. Gentleman was concerned with justification, and


I am giving him the justification. I am saying that in the ordinary case the average individual is not in any difficulty concerning foreign exchange; the difficulty is providing the funds in his bank.
That this is the case and not conjecture on my part is demonstrated by the fact that for each of these years that we have had this restriction the full amount has not, on average, been spent. But I recognise immediately that there are people below and above the average. There are obviously those below who have not spent their full amount and there are those who would have wished to spend more had they been allowed to do so. Therefore, I want to concern myself with the situation, with which I am familiar, of a man who, for example, wants to go on a skiing holiday to Switzerland and finds the limitation on foreign currency the real difficulty. Having measured the difficulty, hardship or inconvenience to which the individual is put, my justification must be to set against that the benefit to the community. This is where I come to the figures with which the right hon. Gentleman asked me to deal.
Of course, exchange control affects the non-sterling area holiday, but we are equally concerned with the saving to the balance of payments, the saving on the reserves, which is the United Kingdom balance of payments. So I will deal with that first and see how we reconcile the effect of that on the second.
There is obviously no possibility, unless we scrap the whole of the sterling area system, of restricting control in the sterling area. The figures for the non-sterling area have been given before, but I will give them again. Comparing 1965 with 1968, there has been a reduction of £39 million in holiday expenditure. That is a reduction from £164 million to £125 million. The proportion is substantial— nearly a quarter. If there had been no restriction the expenditure would have risen, on the best estimate that I can put before the House, by about £20 million. I do not claim any precision for that figure. It is the best estimate. I am giving it to make clear that the figure with which we have to deal is not the £39 million, but what, in addition, would have been the increase. We are, therefore, dealing with a fall of probably £59 mil-

lion or, in round figures, £60 million. So that the effect of the restriction has been a gross figure of £60 million, against which we have to set a number of things.
We have to set the switch from sterling area to non-sterling area—that is the point that the right hon. Gentleman asked me about—and we have to set our estimate of the money which has not come to official notice. We have to make a calculation for all these things, and the best calculation which I am advised can safely be relied upon is £25 million a year. I am advised—and the right hon. Gentleman knows exactly what I mean when I say "I am advised"—that that is the best calculation which can be made by my officers who he and I know go to enormous trouble and lean over backwards to be fair and objective when asked for figures to be put before the House. I rely on that not as a precise figure but as a safe minimum figure. My view is that the figure is likely to be more than that.

Sir Frederic Bennett: In the figures that the right hon. Gentleman has just given, can he say whether increases in requests for additional business allowances and other additional allowances, including health, which he has given to me in figures in HANSARD within the last few days, have been taken into account?

Mr. Diamond: We have taken those fully into account. The hon. Gentleman will know, because he asked the Question himself—I cannot rely on my recollection for the precise figures—that business expenditure has gone up by the amount we would expect, and there is no reason to believe that it includes anything other than normal business expenditure. The increase is normal.
The other item is within £1 million— the same as before. Therefore, there is no reason to adjust the figure that I am giving for those other items. They were taken into account and examined before arriving at the conclusion that £25 million is a safe calculation. I believe that £25 million is a saving well worth having. Balancing against that saving, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, the complete absence of hardship, although there may be inconvenience for some people, I think that anybody looking at the matter objectively would take the view that this is fully justified.

Mr. Peter Bessell: I know that the Chief Secretary wishes to help the House. He has referred to the possible increase of £20 million, had there been no restriction, and to the figure of £25 million, and said that these calculations were arrived at by members of his staff, and that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) would understand this. But may I ask him to explain how these calculations are arrived at?

Mr. Diamond: If the hon. Gentleman wants full details about the £20 million, he must put his question to the Board of Trade, because it is that Department's officials who go to great lengths in arriving at these figures. There are a number of items of adjustment which are within the knowledge of officials and the bank officials who deal with this matter every day. All I am saying is that I accept that they have taken into account every possible adjustment that ought to be made, and that, knowing the way that Treasury officials prepare the figures, I am satisfied that the figures are on the safe side. They have given me this figure as one which can be relied on as a safe calculation, and I am putting it to the House in that way. There is nobody who can put a better calculation before us. There is nobody who has the experience of and access to all the facts who can put a better calculation before us. The right hon. Gentleman, as a matter of debate, can challenge them, but that will not carry any conviction, because he knows as well as I do where the authoritative sources lie.

Mr. Maudling: Are these figures based on small samplings? On what are they based?

Mr. Diamond: There are a number of sources for the figures. They are based on returns, Bank of England figures, on Board of Trade collections, and on large samplings as well. They should include all those things. It is not possible to get a view of the whole position unless one does sampling as well.
We are fully justified in the view that we have taken, and I think that the vast majority of people in this country have understood that and accepted it, having regard to our difficulties. I do not imagine that any citizen has thought that the Government have done this as a matter of perverseness, because, as every-

body knows, this kind of restriction is used by Governments of all parties. We have had these restrictions in force for three years. Our predecessors restricted the amount available for travel for eight consecutive years. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about how ridiculous all this is. It was just as ridiculous when his Government were in power. They had a similar situation. They took the view that one cannot restrict trade but that one can restrict foreign travel. They varied it up and down for eight consecutive years.
Whatever their view may have been, our view is that this is a restriction. We do not intend to keep it for a moment longer than is necessary, and it is bound to—

Mr. Dalyell: Mr. Dalyell rose—

Mr. Diamond: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to continue, because I am anxious not to curtail the debate even further than it has been by earlier events.
We are anxious to bring this restriction to an end as soon as it can safely be done. We delight and rejoice in the fact that the balance of payments situation has made a marked improvement, and that brings the matter very much into consideration. My right hon. Friend considered this and said as recently as 21st October:
I … hope to be able to abolish the restrictions before long."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st October, 1969; Vol. 788, c. 953.]

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: What does that mean?

Mr. Diamond: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what it means. Abolishing means what it says, not what is on the Order Paper. What is on the Order Paper refers to increasing the £50 travel allowance. When hon. Gentlemen opposite were the Government they made a series of changes up and down compared with what we are proposing. They inherited a limit of £100. They proceeded to reduce it first to £50 and then to £25, then they raised it to £40, and ultimately they raised it to £100. There were different allowances for adults and children. There were different allowances for different countries. They revelled in the complexity of their restrictions. I shudder to think of how many officials must have


been engaged unnecessarily in working out the complexities, and how much public money must have been wasted. The complexity was totally unnecessary.
The Chancellor is not attracted by a change which would lose most of the benefit to the reserves without any reduction in complexity of administration, and therefore the only question that remains is what is: meant by "how long", as the one silent Member on the Front Bench opposite asked me. I want to help the House as much as I can on that. We know that people are naturally anxious to plan their holidays well in advance and want to know where they stand with the travel allowance. We are anxious to avoid causing inconvenience to travel agents who also want to make their plans well in advance. It would be wrong to assume that there are no precedents for varying the travel allowance as from a date other than the commencement of the travel year, that is to say, at the beginning of November. There are a variety of precedents, mostly provided by the Government of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
In 1952 an announcement was made at the end of January. In 1953 an announcement was made in March. In 1966, during our Administration, an announcement was made in July. I want to make it clear that I am not making any prophecy of any kind but simply making the point that there are precedents for dates other than the beginning of November. My right hon. Friend would not therefore feel compelled, on the ground of lack of precedents only, to continue the restriction longer than was necessary, but he has made it clear that it would be premature to take action immediately, and that it would be wrong to do so before it is certain that the improvement in our balance of payments is secure and can be maintained.
Our policies have been shown to be attended with a considerable measure of success, and my right hon. Friend's judgment in this matter has been shown to be right. The House can have full confidence in that judgment, and I can add my assurance that these restrictions will be kept under continuous review and will be removed as soon as it is safe to do so.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) will recall, Chief Secretaries to the Treasury sometimes have the experience of being put up to defend the indefensible, and we have had an extraordinarily good example of that in the very able speech of the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman did, however, overdo it, because he presented two arguments in favour of this restriction, either of which might have stood by itself, but which collapsed in company.
The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that the amount which is allowed at the moment, given air fares on top— and the right hon. Gentleman took a very high figure for that; a great deal more than is required to go to the north of France or to the Low Countries—was as much as the average family could afford anyway. That argument, so far as it went, was something, but the right hon. Gentleman then went on to demonstrate that, despite that fact, a quite substantial surplus to our balance of payments was achieved by the operation of this restriction. It was a very gallant attempt to have it both ways, but it simply does not stand up.
The right hon. Gentleman's argument about savings also does not stand up when one sees his assumption that but for this restriction expenditure would have risen a great deal more, and therefore he says that we have saved that. It seems to damage the average man's budget argument, and, taken by itself, it is absurd. The right hon. Gentleman compared 1965 with 1968. He of all people should recall the changes which occurred over that period, in particular the increases in personal direct taxation. Most people, when their taxation rises, cut back their holidays or cut them out altogether.
The right hon. Gentleman also ignored the fact that devaluation, by making it more expensive for people to go abroad, discouraged foreign travel anyway. Therefore, his assumption, on which this argument for a saving mostly rests, that this amount would have increased but for this provision, does not seem to match up to the normal Treasury standards. But even if one accepts it, one is involved next in the figure of £25 million a year.


No one will say that that is negligible, but it is well within the corrections involved sometimes in one month's trade figures. Yet this is an annual expenditure. Against the sum total of the balance of payments, it is not of startling significance.
Yet the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand what damage this does abroad, not only as my right hon. Friend so well said, to individuals, but to this country's standing and, I suggest, to sterling. If the Englishman on holiday in Europe is conspicuously the poorest man in the hotel, if it is the Germans and the others who have the best rooms and the best tables and the Englishman has a special cheap rate arranged for him, does not that operate perpetually to remind foreigners that there is something wrong with the British economy and the British currency? Is it not a standing advertisement that the £ is perhaps a currency that people had better be cautious of?
I put this very point to the Chancellor when he made his statement on 21st October. Perhaps I might remind the House of my supplementary question to him:
Is it not a fact that the true value of the £50 allowance is reduced every year by inflation in this and other countries? How does the Chancellor expect confidence in sterling to be re-established when every British tourist is a walking advertisement for the fact that crisis measures are still in force in Britain?
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
It is, of course, the case that the value of the £50 allowance is less now than it was when it was introduced. It is, however, still a good deal more than the £25 which was in operation during quite a part of the period when the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was Financial Secretary to the Treasury … as well as for a short period following a year's surplus in 1952."—[OFFICIAL RF.PORT, 21st October, 1969; Vol. 788, c. 958.]
The Chief Secretary himself went into this same argument. Regrettably we all know it—the argument of a Minister in trouble—"It may be a silly thing to do, but other people have been silly as well."
The Chancellor introduced it. The briefing in the Treasury is extremely good and never lets one down but it makes an interesting comparison. The Chief Secretary reintroduced it. I want to follow this up. As he knows, I did follow it up.

I asked the Chancellor to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table setting out the value of the travel allowance in cash terms and in terms of real value at 1969 United Kingdom prices for each year since 1951. The Financial Secretary, after, I think, the full week's permitted delay, which suggests that the occasion gave him some heart searching, replied on 4th November in Written Answers at columns 71 and 72.
Of course, that reply establishes that, for the year to which the Chancellor referred, although, in the quotation, he reduplicated 1952, the travel allowance was £25. But the Chief Secretary did not bring this, as is necessary for a fair comparison, up to mid-1969 prices, as I insisted in my Question. If he had, the figure would have been rather different; it would have been £42, not all that short of £50. But that was one year—

Mr. Diamond: I apologise. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that we are comparing £42 with £65—£42 in his time, £65 in ours.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman is entitled simply to add the £15 to the travel allow ance—

Mr. Diamond: I am.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is my recollection that a certain amount in notes was permitted to be taken out under the old system.

Mr. Diamond: If I might give the House the facts: I am entitled to do this, because this can only be done legally as the result of the Statutory Instruments introduced during our time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It was certainly a practice at that time, and to the best of my knowledge no attempt was made to interfere with a reasonable number being taken out. I will compare like with like. But even if I gave the right hon. Gentleman that point, it does not prove much, because, in the next year, it went up to £40, which, brought up to mid-1969 prices, is £63. The following year, it went up again to £50, equivalent to £80 in 1969, and the year after that, to £100, the equivalent of £155.
At that point, the right hon. Gentleman's personal argument collapses,


because I left the Treasury, but the successive improvements year after year are the exact opposite of what has happened under the right hon. Gentleman's Government. The allowance was introduced at £50 in cash value in 1967, equivalent to £55 at mid-1969 prices, and, of course, has dropped marginally in the years thereafter. It has gone down, in fact, by 10 per cent.
So the picture is of a low figure in one year at the beginning of the Conservative Government. The right hon. Gentleman will, I hope, forgive the argument, but it was a Government which followed six years of war followed by six years of Socialism, and for whom some allowances should, therefore, be made. But the limit introduced at that bottom level in one year was steadily increased, whereas the picture under the right hon. Gentleman's Government is that it was introduced at a low figure which has been further eroded by inflation each year. Indeed, the figures favour the Government. I used, to get a fair comparison, British mid-1969 prices. The House knows how rapidly they have risen, but in view of devaluation the answer would have been even worse for the Government had I taken the price levels of most of the countries which tourists visit.
Then, the right hon. Gentleman went on to taunt my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet with having done this. He should look at his own table. The Financial Secretary should have showed it to him before he published it. My right hon. Friend was Chancellor from 1962 to 1964, but over the whole period from 1960 to 1966 inclusive there was no limitation at all. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to shelter behind the practice of my right hon. Friend or of my right hon. and hon. Friends, he has the answer. It was the Chancellor who introduced this comparative league tabling. The fact is that we started at a low figure in a difficult situation, increased it and then abolished the limitations during the years which my right hon. Friend was in charge, whereas this Government have introduced it at a low figure and allowed it to be eroded each year.
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman really thinks that this is the way in which to prepare this country—if

he wishes it—to enter Europe, if it is going to be made deliberately more difficult for British people to meet people in Europe. If he is going to think up just one limitation in the use of foreign exchange, as my right hon. Friend so well said, need it be using of it to go and meet foreigners in their own countries? Is that the way to make us good Europeans?
The right hon. Gentleman then finished with a very curious, but, from my study of the right hon. Gentleman I believe that it was meant to be, significant, observation. He said that it is not necessary to make these changes in the autumn. He said that there are precedents for making them at other times of the year. Indeed, there are. I venture this prophecy, that in the course of this year an increase will be made, and, by a happy coincidence, this will be shortly followed by the announcement of the dissolution of Parliament.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I should like to offer some praise to the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) in setting an example on these occasions by keeping his speech very brief —something which is not often done by the Front Benches—especially when through no fault of his own he ran into time difficulties. That example was followed by the Chief Secretary. On the odd occasions when this happens, the back benches should at least show some appreciation of it.
I listened to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) with interest, because, like him, I am not against foreign travel. Nor do I say that necessarily because some people cannot afford it in this country therefore it should be cut back. I like foreign travel as much as anyone. He was worried lest when he went abroad he would be conspicuously the poorest man in the hotel. If our economic destinies were controlled by what was thought by the head waiter of the Grand Hotel in Nice or Le Touquet, it would be a matter for concern. As we know, the economic destinies of Britain are not controlled by head waiters of tourist hotels or even by the friends one meets abroad. They are more under the control of financial ministries, bankers and city and financial journalists. Their


opinions rather than those of the tourist industry are the ones to heed.
When one considers the effect on bankers, editors and financial ministries abroad, one realises that those people are less concerned with the poverty of British tourists, temporary though that is, than with our desire to make an efficient economic recovery as a nation.
My proposition is that in asking for the travel allowance to be increased or for the restriction to be abolished, we are risking inviting the man who has just had 'flu to get out of bed too early and to find that his recovery is not advanced but only postponed, simply by the fact that actions have been taken at too early a stage.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Naturally, the views of hotel waiters are only of interest to hotel waiters. The hon. Gentleman will agree, however, that for hundreds of thousands of people to advertise conspicuously by the way they go on that they come from a country which still has severe restrictions cannot be good either for the health of sterling or for confidence in the British economy.

Mr. Dalyell: One can put it another way. The people in Europe who make the decisions want to know if we are serious about getting out of our balance of payments difficulties. I therefore draw different conclusions than does the right hon. Gentleman from the same facts.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that these Measures are ineffective. I am not so sure, because I do not know exactly by what standards one should judge these matters. However, it seems from the facts published by the Board of Trade that, whereas in 1968 £282 million was spent by 4·8 million foreigners and visitors to this country, Britons abroad spent £271 million, but they numbered 7·3 million. Prima facie that means that the restrictions have been reasonably effective, for the spending per capita has been much higher among those who come here than among Britons abroad. Have not the restrictions had something to do with that?
Again, on the question of effectiveness, the figures I have obtained show that in 1968 we spent £271 million abroad while in 1967 we spent £274 million. Thus, at

a time when world spending on travel was rising, British expenditure was stabilised. Either we are serious about tackling the balance of payments or we are not.
One is provoked by the remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite to raise the question of abuse. While undoubtedly there have been minor abuses of the controls, it is the nature of British travellers abroad to be reasonably law-abiding. I suggest, therefore, that the claims of hon. Gentlemen opposite are somewhat exaggerated. If we look for abuse, we should not look for it in only one direction. There may be others. What, for example, is the feeling of the Treasury about those who spend thousands of £s buying property in countries like Portugal? There are certain Treasury restrictions in this connection, but there is a feeling that these could be abused, and I hope that the Chief Secretary will raise the matter.
Still on the question of abuse, the right hon. Member for Barnet raised the issue of Australia. I had the good fortune to be on an official visit from this House to Japan and Indonesia at Whitsun, and I went on to Australia. The Chief Secretary can confirm this, but my experience was that each traveller's cheque taken to Australia was over-printed with the words, "Not valid in countries outside the sterling area".
Nowhere in the world have I seen passengers so carefully scrutinised and questioned as we were serutinised at Sydney Airport. It was the most rigorous Customs survey I have seen. Perhaps it was due to certain unusual circumstances or that it was purely accidental. I mention this merely to point out that the right hon. Member for Barnet was not right in his references to Australia.

Sir Charles Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) was saying that when Australians go into non-sterling areas they are allowed to take a larger amount than we are allowed to take to Europe. Naturally, if one takes sterling cheques to Australia they can be cashed only in a sterling area, as it were. Australians coming to Europe, however, have a larger allowance than we have.

Mr. Dalyell: The facts can be checked. The allowance for Australians may be


larger, but I believe that there are restrictions on the amount that Australians can take to the dollar area. Thus, this argument is open to question.
The right hon. Member for Barnet went on to say that this was the only restriction. I did not hear from the Chief Secretary a list of the restrictions that are imposed by Her Majesty's Government or that have been imposed by previous British Administrations in the sphere of foreign exchange. However, I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman was not correct when he spoke of this being the only control.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I think that my right hon. Friend said that it was the only restriction on personal spending. He clearly recognised, of course, that there were restrictions on the export of capital.

Mr. Dalyell: I accept that. Perhaps I misunderstood his point.
Reference has been made to the psychological effect of maintaining these controls. Have hon. Gentlemen opposite considered the psychological effect of abolishing them too soon? It would be foolish to reverse such policies as these so soon after moving into a substantial balance of payments surplus. We would be acting prematurely, to say the least.
I urge hon. Gentlemen opposite to leave matters of this sort to those who control the day-to-day management of the economy. On a matter like this— as the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said so many nice things about Treasury officials and advisers— we should leave to them some of the decision-making, for we must accept that they and our Ministers know what they are doing.
The improvement in our balance of payments position must be secure and we must have a good prospect of maintaining it. It would be odd, to say the least, if, as we begin to show economic progress, the first concession we make is to those who wish to spend their holidays abroad. This would be regarded as very odd indeed by those whose opinions matter at home and abroad and I do not believe that the maintenance of this control is nearly as silly as the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames would have us believe.
The right hon. Member for Barnet said that the whole question of freedom was involved here. I will not detain the House with a philosophical discourse on the nature of freedom, except to say that our freedoms are so restricted in so many different ways, as they must be in a modern society, that it seems curious to pick out this, of all things, as an example of a limitation on freedom. There is freedom to and freedom not to be due to. To make the accusation against this side of the House as if in some way we are limiting freedom seems to be a distortion of the position.
I find it very strange that in a valuable three hours on a Supply day, when hon. Members opposite could have a three-line Whip, they chose this subject of all subjects. Would it not have been better to choose many of the urgent subjects about which the Leader of the House is questioned on Thursdays, such as Biafra, or abatement of pensions? I think this a very bogus Motion.

6.10 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Tempted although I am to follow some of the observations of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—with virtually none of which I agree, and in which he was factually wrong in regard to Australia and elsewhere—I do not wish to do so.
I do not dispute one word said by my right hon. Friends this afternoon, but I want to devote a few minutes to another aspect—the validity of the figures.
I assure the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that I am not for a moment suggesting that a group of civil servants and Ministers have got together to compile bogus figures, but I do not think the material on which the figures were based give any ground for confidence. The right hon. Gentleman knows that from a succession of letters and Questions I have been trying to pursue this question ever since the Queen's Speech. I think he made a point which was not fair, that the business allowance had gone up only as one would have expected. I received a breakdown of these figures from the Treasury. They were first published including all money spent abroad for holidays, business and other purposes, including health. I then asked that they should be broken down into figures for


the non-sterling area and the sterling area. It is agreed that this afternoon we are dealing primarily with the non-sterling area.
In the non-sterling area the figure has gone up for business from £30 million to £39 million in just under three years. It has gone up by a full 30 per cent, at the rate of 10 per cent, a year. The right hon. Gentleman regards that as a normal increase. Yet inside the sterling area, where we do just as much business as elsewhere, the figure for business claims has gone up barely at all, from £10 million to £11 million, yet in the non-sterling area from the moment the restriction was introduced it has gone up by 30 per cent. This requires more clarification than the right hon. Gentleman gave.
On the figures the right hon. Gentleman gave this £25 million or £30 million saving—I believe he said £25 million, but it is occasionally referred to as £30 million—but if we lump together the figures as they were given to me for the sterling area and the non-sterling area, the amount is only £19 million. I do not think even that is valid. After the Queen's Speech, in every way I could I tried to get some information on which Ministers had calculated these figures. Oddly enough, for a Government who, goodness knows, love to gather statistics on every aspect of our national life, I found that no attempt at all had been made to find how many travellers' cheques had been drawn upon the Treasury or Bank of England, or of what amounts, and no attempt to find how much foreign currency had been drawn by people going abroad.
After pursuing this question with the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, I asked: If the Treasury do not check this, how do they base this information? After a little trouble I received the last letter on this matter only this afternoon and discovered that they rely in obtaining the figures put before us today on the International Passenger Survey, of which I have a copy here. It is included in the Registrar-General's statistical review. As far as I know what the International Passenger Survey has computed is the only available evidence to arrive at the figure of £25 million.
I wish that I had time to read it all, but I will read only four short sentences.

This is how it is checked to see how much people are taking abroad in travellers' cheques and foreign currency. It says:
At London Airport and Prestwick: nearly 7 per cent. of outgoing and 4 per cent. of incoming passengers on the long air routes are interviewed; 2 per cent. in winter and 1 per cent. in summer of short air route passengers are also interviewed there. At smaller airports: the percentage sampled varies between half of 1 per cent. and 4 per cent. …
On short sea routes: about 1 per cent. of winter and half of 1 per cent. of summer traffic is interviewed.
On the long sea routes: … nearly 7 per cent. of the outgoing passengers and 7 per cent. and 4 per cent. of the incoming passengers are sampled.
But, of course, those going on long sea routes do not generally come into the category of people going away on holiday, but in the other groups we see what a minute sample is relied upon by the International Passenger Survey and the Government for the Minister to say how much is saved.
When we had a large allowance—when my right hon. Friend was in charge, up to £250—there was no statutory provision for taking £ notes abroad, but a discretion was given that £5 or £10 was not quarrelled with. I have done it dozens of times. One declared what one had and this was readily acceded to.

Mr. Diamond: To help the House to get this clear I should say that there was no objection to taking the currency abroad. What one could not do was to exchange it abroad for foreign currency.

Sir F. Bennett: I did not expect the right hon. Gentleman to make that point. He is indeed naive if he thinks that people who take £5 or £10 abroad do so for the purpose of buying a Scotch while in an aeroplane. He knows that is nonsense. In addition to the £15 which people are now allowed to take, they can take an unlimited amount of silver. That did not matter so much in the old days, unless one carried it in a haversack, but now with the 50p piece one can take much more value in silver.
The right hon. Gentleman must know that tourists, almost without exception, regard the £15 as being added to their allowance for changing when they get to the country of their destination. The figures he gave are based on a £50 allowance, but if we take into account


that all the travellers who have been going abroad since this restriction came in also have their £15 and spend that in addition to travellers' cheques and foreign currency, a very different figure appears. About an extra £30 million has gone abroad in this period. If we take that into account we see that there has been virtually no saving because when previously there was no particular reason to take £15 as one could take as much foreign currency as one liked, and no one in his senses would take £ notes when he could take travellers' cheques and foreign currency for he would get a better exchange.
A point which my right hon. Friend did not make about the prestige of the British economy abroad is that anyone who has been to travel offices abroad knows perfectly well that travellers' cheques are put on one side and £ notes on another. The £ notes are exchanged at a reduced rate compared with what can be obtained for travellers' cheques. This is certainly not a good thing for the image of the £ at present.
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was fair in dealing with the question of loopholes. On the one hand he said that only a very few people would spend a great deal more than £50 if they had the chance. The average man, he said, would not be able to do so; but, of course, a richer, smaller number of people go to Bermuda and the Bahamas. Quite a lot, too, go to Malta.
The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that in Bermuda and in the Bahamas the dollar is freely interchangeable with the currency notes of those places. Therefore, any of the minority that he mentioned can go straight to the Bahamas and to Bermuda and when he is paid in a shop, a hotel or anywhere else in dollar notes, can use those dollar notes elsewhere for anything he wishes. The notes are in his pocket. Those figures do not appear in the right hon. Gentleman's statistics.
Anyone in Gibraltar—not merely a Gibraltar resident, but anyone who is staying there—can draw £15 worth of foreign currency to leave Gibraltar, either to go to Morocco, or, if he is lucky enough nowadays, to go into Spain. A person leaving Malta can get much more than £50 whether he is a United Kingdom resident or not since the banks there

do not know whether a person is a resident of Malta or on holiday there.
It is this aspect that I find most intolerable about the Government's decision—not just the restriction itself, but because I believe that they are enforcing the restriction on thoroughly bogus grounds. If all the factors which I mentioned and other factors are taken into account, I do not believe that, in the face of all this nonsense which is being inflicted upon people, any real saving is being achieved. It is for this reason, above all others, that I urge the Government to drop the restriction.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that Britain had six years of Socialism following the war. If he would read the first 132 pages of John Strachey's book on the Theory and Practice of Socialism, he would realise that, although we had a Labour Government from 1945 to 1951, it was not anything like a Socialist Government. In fact, Britain has never had Socialism.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will talk about the travel allowance.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I was dealing, Sir, with a point raised by the right hon. Gentleman in your absence.
I have my regrets. I do not regret—in the terms of the Motion—Her Majesty's Government's refusal
to increase the £50 travel allowance".
What I regret is that the Government have found it necessary not to increase the £50 travel allowance. We must get our priorities right. We must put the interests of the nation before the interests of individuals.
I love going abroad, but if it is necessary in the national interest to restrict my allowance and that of other members of the community to £50, I am wholly with the Government. We must conserve our sterling balances. If people had put the national interest first in the past few years, things might have been different. Whether it is wild-cat strikes and unofficial strikes on the part of dissident members of trade unions, whether it is obstinate and pig-headed attitudes taken by


management, or whether it is shopkeepers raising their prices far above the level to which it is necessary to raise them, it does not matter. People have placed their own interests first and the interest of the national last. That is why we have to keep this restriction on the allowance.
I urge the Government, however, not to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I refer to the question of evasion. It is often said that if a man steals £100 from the till he is guilty of larceny, but if he does it on a very large scale, involving hundreds of thousands of £s, or even millions of £s in companies that go bankrupt, that is called not larceny but high finance.
In this context a person who, in this country, evades the law and tries to take abroad a sum in excess of £50—say, £100 or £150—is brought to justice and will be prosecuted. If he does it on a very large scale, however, he might not be touched. In France, the situation is different. I quote from The Times of 25th November, dateline Paris:
People who have speculated against the franc since July, 1968, when exchange control regulations were introduced will be charged and brought to court if the alleged offences are serious. They risk fines of between … £170 and … £100,000 and terms of imprisonment ranging from one to five years, or both … Between November 25 1968, when a wave of speculative capital drained from France in the wake of the monetary crisis, and the end of September, the customs authorities had recorded 14,279 breaches of exchange control regulations covering a total amount of more than F.280 million.
We know full well that certain things are happening between Swiss banks and United Kingdom citizens. A few days ago my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor
what action he proposes to take on the collusion between Swiss banks and United Kingdom citizens for the purpose of evading exchange control … and if he will make a statement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1969; Vol. 792, c. 189.]
The Minister of State gave a rather noncommittal reply.
Vast sums of money are being taken out. I urge my right hon. Friend, if he can catch the culprits, to have them prosecuted so that further breaches are

discouraged and stopped. If it is not possible to prosecute them under present law, legislation should be passed quickly to enable them to be prosecuted so that they cannot continue with their nefarious actions.
I urge my right hon. Friend, while shutting one door so as to stop all petty evasions, not to leave another door open, through which people can take out hundreds of thousands, even millions, of £s.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: I will follow the example set by previous speakers and speak briefly. Every responsible right hon. and hon. Member will agree that the first duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to protect the present improvement in our balance of payments situation. Anything which happened to cause any decline in that improvement would be a matter of serious regret, and the Government would be guilty of irresponsible behaviour.
There is another factor to be taken into account. Whether we like it or not, there has been a hidden assistance to some British resort areas as the result of the imposition of a travel allowance. It may have been very small, but it has assisted at a difficult time hoteliers and others in constituencies like mine.
I believe that for these reasons the Motion is particularly well worded. It does not call for the abolition of the travel allowance. It regrets the refusal of the Government to increase it from £50. Although the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) was arguing more for abolition than for an increase in the allowance, I believe that it is right that we should consider the possibility of an increase rather than the abolition of the restriction.
The cost of living has risen in virtually every country. Since the travel allowance was imposed, its value has declined both by virtue of that increase in the cost of living and by the effects of devaluation. As long ago as October of last year I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was
aware that the allowance was fixed before devaluation.
I continued:
Will he consider increasing the allowance to compensate for the effects which devaluation has had on it?


The right hon. Gentleman gave this important reply:
It might possibly be said that such a case could be made out, but devaluation has involved certain other sacrifices. I do not think that it is unreasonable that the foreign travel allowance should bear a small measure of the sacrifice. Looking at the matter—and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have looked at it closely—it seems that a small adjustment would be costly without giving any great benefit. I would, therefore, prefer to wait until it is safe to abolish the restriction altogether."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th October, 1968; Vol. 770, c. 188.]
That seems to indicate, unless the Chancellor has considerably altered his point of view since he gave that answer, that we shall not see any increase in the allowance but, instead, we shall have to wait until it is abolished entirely. That would be very unfortunate. I do not— any more than the Motion does—call for abolition, but I hope that there will be a substantial increase, and that that increase will be followed at a much later date by abolition.
The value of the allowance has fallen considerably as a result of inflation and the effects of devaluation. Today—I have made my calculation as carefully as I can—the £50 which was worth £50 when the limit was first imposed is now worth a little less than £35, for example, in the United States of America. This gives added weight to the arguments already advanced for an increase, though not abolition of the restriction.
It is closely linked with something more important, the deeper problem of the business allowance. Many business men are compelled to use their £50 holiday allowance to augment the totally inadequate business allowance. If the right hon. Gentleman says that it is not inadequate, let him consider that the £20 a day business allowance is worth 48 dollars a day, which is completely inadequate to meet the minimal needs of any business man who has, for example, to seek to attract dollar investment to this country. I have worked out a sum, but I shall not waste the time of the House with it, although I shall be glad to submit it to the right hon. Gentleman privately. I assure him that I have found it necessary on my own business visits abroad to use the £50 holiday allowance for business purposes, and I am certainly not alone in that.
I promised to speak briefly, so I shall not continue the arguments so ably advanced already from this side of the House. I add one comment only on the question of evasion. Evasion must be looked into seriously. There is nothing worse than a law which causes evasion. It was said in one newspaper recently that it is known that ladies travel abroad with £100 in £5 notes tucked into their "bras", and that they can do this safely without fear of search. That is the kind of evasion which should be discouraged, and the best way of discouraging it would be by an increase in the allowance.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will take note of the Motion, and take early steps to improve the present limit.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow: Like other hon. Members, I was surprised to see this Motion put down. I cannot understand who it is the Opposition think they are representing. I have made inquiries in my own constituency, and I have not received a single complaint about the inadequacy of the travel allowance. This is so probably because most of my constituents, whom I try to represent, and, I hope, represent adequately, are not people with a great deal of wealth. The fact of the matter is that in the pages of the Sunday newspapers devoted to travel advertisements there are hundreds of good opportunities advertised which take into account the travel allowance, and these are taken advantage of by many people in my constituency. After a reasonable holiday abroad, they may, indeed, come back with a few pounds unspent.
I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) say that he is a director of a company dealing with package tours. I am, perhaps, a little out of date, but at one time I was in the travel business myself. I do not for a moment consider that an increase in the travel allowance would bring an improvement in the prices of package tours. On the contrary, the restriction—which I do not personally like—has resulted in extremely competitive and good value being given. In another context, we all know that reductions in taxation—they are too few and far between—are not followed by reductions in prices. Although, in theory, the removal of restrictive regulations should


reduce prices, it has been my experience over the past few years that they do not. Reasons are always found either for maintaining the price or, sometimes, even for increasing it.
The package tour system has now become a matter of widespread interest to a much wider public. The initiative of restricting foreign expenditure has created a huge public for the package tour— and long may that interest continue. My experience is that miners and their wives and children who go abroad now are able to have an extremely good holiday in places and circumstances which would not have been open to them a number of years ago.
This seems, therefore, an extraordinary subject for the opposition to raise. They could have raised all sorts of matters about which, no doubt, there is political sensitivity. One hon. Member mentioned the question of the pensions scheme a few minutes ago, a matter which was pressed at the business question time today and which we could quite well have discussed. Whom do the Opposition think they are representing? I do not know, unless it be the rentier—the rentiers of Bournemouth, Torquay and places like that, I suspect. They are quite mistaken if they imagine that this restriction is resented by the broad mass of the people. In fact, people fully understand the reasons for it, and they have taken advantage of the good competitive prices which are offered for holidays. The Opposition have made fools of themselves.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: The hon. Member for Lich field and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), who has just joined in our discussion after coming in only a few minutes before—

Mr. Snow: Quite wrong.

Mr. Rees-Davies: —apparently did not listen to the speech made 20 minutes earlier by his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). Otherwise, he would not, I am sure, have wished to repeat almost word for word what had already been said from his own side.

Mr. Snow: In fact, I was here for quite a long time this afternoon. I heard the speeches. I prefer to express my own

views in my own way and not copy from others.

Mr. Rees-Davies: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did, since we are trying to confine the debate within a brief period, and pure repetition of identical argument already advanced only wastes time.
I prefer the freedom of movement rather than the freedom to guzzle or the freedom to eat. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) when he says that freedom for people to travel is, perhaps, more important than being able to bathe in champagne or guzzle caviare. I regard the right, in the modern age, to move about the world freely as an important freedom. I believe that young people do, too.
It is idiotic to suggest that the £50 travel allowance is sufficient because it enables a family of husband, wife and two children to have one good holiday. Nowadays, the young people of the world —and a great many of us as well—want to be able to go abroad two or even three times a year on various objectives, and there is no earthly reason why they should not. When the Conservative Government were in power, there was a steady relaxation of the restriction, until it was finally abolished, and at all times in the later years people could go abroad as much as they wanted.
The sooner the present restriction is abolished the better. The situation is utterly absurd, not because evasion cannot be prosecuted or prevented but because the whole scheme is an evasion in itself. First, if one goes to any sterling area country, whether the Caribbean, South Africa, Hong Kong, Australia or many other parts of the world, one can convert one's money and obtain whatever currency is needed, so long as one has sufficient means to get there.
The particularly unfortunate aspect of this is that it deliberately hits the person of moderate means and allows the person of substantial means to do exactly what he pleased. For example, a car allowance can be obtained, and then not be taken up, so that the total amount is increased. It is very simple for people with friends overseas to make arrangements whereby they are looked after in each other's countries. People who have


many friends abroad are usually people who have been abroad, and are therefore usually well-to-do. Those who are hard up do not have those arrangements, and cannot make them so easily.
We find today that a large number of people who are destitute are repatriated. There are many cases of money allegedly being lost overseas that is not really lost, and that enables those concerned to obtain more. There are a score of ways in which the whole scheme can be shot through from beginning to end. Therefore, evasion is something that requires not prosecution but just an end of this fruitless system.

Mr. Diamond: Is the hon. Gentleman making a case that all the evasion would not take place at a higher limit?

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am saying that we need the abolition of the limit. I think that it is true that raising it to £75 would assist those of moderate means. It is for that reason, and that reason only, that I support an increased limit. I would rather have that if we cannot have abolition, because it would at least be fair to the pensioner, the retired person who wants to continue to be a resident in Great Britain and cannot go abroad more than once in the year. It is such people living on small fixed incomes who can spend up to about £75 to £100 abroad, and could have both a winter trip and a summer trip, who suffer most severely. That is the main reason for an increase in the limit.
With a certain amount of experience in this matter and of the travel trade, I can say that the essence of tourism is international. Its essence is to enable us to fly "back to back". When we send people to the United States those ambassadors that are our tourists bring Americans back in ever-increasing numbers. The same is true of other countries. The more we can use those ambassadors, the greater will be the increase in tourism in this country.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: We have had a very curtailed debate, for reasons which we all appreciate, but it has provided an opportunity for an important matter to be given an airing.
I should perhaps deal straight away with the arguments of the hon. Members

for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow). They sought to argue that the matter was of very little importance, and were perhaps echoing a line the Press was given in guidance two or three days ago, that that was the Government's view, although the Chief Secretary did not use the argument.
Nothing could illustrate more clearly the differences of principle and approach between the two sides of the House. Hon. Members opposite regard the limit as perhaps a rather convenient restriction. It appears to have little or no impact on those whom they believe to be their supporters, and they still nurture the fond illusion that it is of benefit to the balance of payments.
We on this side of the House regard it as an absurd and illogical curtailment of the individual's freedom of choice. The alleged benefits have never been proved. On the contrary, the existence of the control damages the position of sterling, and, because it is felt to be unjustified, it is subject to widespread evasion, leading to a contempt for the law. It is the sort of restriction which, if it is to be maintained, must be justified up to the hilt. If it is to be operated fairly, it must command a wide measure of support.
Having listened to the debate, I feel that neither condition has been met. Like other speakers, I do not intend to take long, because time is limited, and I shall not go over the arguments that have been rehearsed. But I would add one point to the telling speech and the telling figures quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) from the answer he had on 4th November. Those figures left wholly out of account the impact of devaluation on the £50 travel allowance, which knocked £50 down to £42, and inflation since then has reduced it to perhaps not more than £35.

Mr. Diamond: What about Spain?

Mr. Jenkin: Spain is perhaps an exception, because there was devaluation there. I take the point, but there are many other places to which people can go. Many hon. Members opposite are trying to encourage as many people as possible not to go to Spain.
I shall confine my arguments to three points, beginning with the alleged benefits. I dismiss the ludicrous argument, repeated by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth, which appeared in The Times the other day, again as a result of guidance, that:
… the sterling limit has kept down the cost of overseas package holidays for British working-class families at a time when prices would otherwise have risen steeply.
It is complete nonsense. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) made it clear that the prices have been kept down wholly as the result of intensified competition in package tours. Even if it were true that the restriction had had that effect, where does that lead us? The Prime Minister said on 20th July, 1966:
… direct action on the balance of payments is required.
After announcing cuts in defence, he went on:
Private overseas expenditure must also make its contribution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 632–3.]
He then announced the limit of £50.
What would the reaction in the House have been if instead of justifying it by reference to the rising figures of overseas travel expenditure, the Prime Minister had said:
We believe that this restriction will reduce the cost of package tours, and so bring the advantages of foreign travel within the reach of still more working-class families."?
The House would rightly have thought that he had taken leave of his senses. It is astonishing that we should have heard that argument from the hon. Gentleman. It is typical Socialist logic. I hope that I am not straying out of order when I remind the House of the groundnuts scheme, in which nearly £40 million of expenditure was wasted, and the justification—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's hope is unfounded. He was straying out of order.

Mr. Jenkin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I shall leave that topic straight away.
Now hon. Members opposite seek mainly to rely on the alleged figure of £25 million gain to the balance of payments. I said in the debate on this subject on 30th June:

It is remarkable that no Minister who has had to deal with the matter has ever been able to be any more specific, and no Chancellor, despite repeated questioning, has felt able to publish his calculations in arriving at this figure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1969; Vol. 786, c. 91–92.]
That statement is as true now after the Chief Secretary's speech as it was when I made it.
In that debate I challenged the Government on a number of issues. What about the loss to the airlines? The nationalised airlines have been among the most vocal critics of the restriction. Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any account of the loss of income on the investments in foreign hotels made by British tour operators? Many of those hotels, particularly the more expensive ones, have been outside the range of the travel allowance. Yet, as a recent report of the European Travel Commission made clear, those items are both substantial.
We have not yet had a proper justification for the limit. Any Minister who seeks to satisfy his critics by justifying the figure must take those points into consideration, but the Chief Secretary has not even attempted to do so.
What about expenditure in the sterling area? My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) made this telling point. Here the expenditure is rising sharply. I will quote a paragraph from an article by Alan Day in the Observer:
The truth is that the legal distinction between sterling area holidays and those in the rest of the world has had precious little justification since convertibility was re-established over a decade ago and now has practically no justification as a way of helping our balance of payments. Whether I spend my money in Sicily or in Malta, I am adding a deficit item to the British balance of payments which is liable to be paid out in gold or dollars. And these days, sterling area countries show no great reluctance to convert sterling into dollars if it suits their convenience.
Perhaps I could answer the right hon. Gentleman's jibes about the controls operated by my right hon. Friends by saying that that was before convertibility applied. Until 1958, when quotas were on imports and there was no general licence, it made sense to restrict all sorts of expenditure. But once the general licence came in, the restrictions were abolished and remained abolished until 1966, but this one form of personal current expenditure has been singled out for restrictions. This is what makes it so completely illogical.
My second point is that, because it has failed to be justified, there is undoubtedly widespread evasion. Many methods have been quoted. Some hon. Members opposite have tried to say that evasion is very limited, but I wonder whether they read the report in the Daily Mail by Vincent Mulchrone on 16th October, 1968, in which he said:
In Greece earlier this year, our travel editor, Peter Whelpton, questioned 40 English tourists. Four out of five admitted that they had brought extra cash.
That is only one stray poll, but it is some indication of the widespread nature of evasion. There are other devices, and, had there been time, I would have elaborated on this, but the way in which those firms controlling both hotels and airlines manage to have cross-sub-sidisation so as to reduce the amount of the V form which has to be allocated to the hotel, leaving the holidaymaker with more spending money, is apparently legal, because it is obviously sanctioned by the Bank of England.
But the real harm of this is the damage that it does to confidence. Here, perhaps, I can rely on a recent personal experience. When the Chancellor made his announcement, I was in America, and this was one item out of very few which made the columns of the Press in the Middle West. I was asked for an explanation of the introduction of this limit. I explained that the £50 tourist allowance was the equivalent of about 120 dollars. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that that was greeted with cries of incredulity. The immediate assumption of my audience was that if British citizens were allowed to take out of the country only that much, the economy must still be in a critically dangerous state. I was trying to persuade my audiences, because I was speaking abroad, by quoting the figures, that the British economy seemed at long last to be beginning to turn the corner. But immediately, this very measure cast doubts on the veracity of my claims on behalf of my country.
This is the real damage, the damage which is done to confidence in the £. As The Guardian said on 22nd October:
… this is not the act of a country that has mastered its economic difficulties and recovered its nerve. It will confirm the impression that Britain is the poor relation of Europe, and still down on its uppers. The British abroad will continue to be known as the tourists who cannot afford to tip the waiter.

If the Government wanted to undermine confidence in the £, they could hardly have devised a more effective method than sending out millions of our people who have to count every centime, every pfennig, every peseta and every cent they spend.
Confidence always has been and a mains a critical weapon in the Chancellor's armoury. The sooner that this niggling, irksome and illiberal restriction is removed the better. I have rarely felt more justified in asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to support a Motion in the Lobby.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. Diamond: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate. I will come to the comment of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) about removing this restriction a little later. I should like first to answer the questions put to me.
The first was about the business allowance, and came from the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell). Twenty pounds a day, as he will recognise, is a reasonable allowance, apart from the United States, and in the United States or in any case in which a business allowance greater than £20 is required, a businessman has only to submit and justify an application and he will get more. This sounds a large figure, but the hon. Member and I both know that one sometimes needs more. We are anxious for exporters to go abroad, and we rely on their discretion in deciding on the best method of getting exports.
I turn to the suggestion about Australia. Australia and all other countries in the sterling area co-operate fully with these restrictions. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was absolutely right: a United Kingdom resident does not get more than the amount to which he is entitled here. We get that full cooperation.
I was asked about purchasing property in Portugal. It is true that purchases can be made legally, but they are made with property currency from a pool of money which is available for that purpose, and at no cost to the reserves. There have been illegal purchases and there have been prosecutions accordingly. On travel


offences alone, on this same point of prosecutions, we of course follow up cases which we find out about. The Customs is very active about this, and in the past 12 months there have been 64 prosecutions, resulting in fines totalling over £12,000. In addition, the Customs has seized a total of £120,000.
Someone asked about the figures of visitors here and suggested that the present limitation of travel allowance was discouraging visits. The fact is that so far this year the number of visitors to the United Kingdom is up by 24 per cent. Those are the main points which were put to me.
Three main arguments have developed on this Motion. First, how right the hon. Member was to support his Motion by arguing for abolition. He and the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said the same thing. They both argued for abolition, and not a single speech— with the solitary exception of that of the hon. Member for Bodmin—contained an argument for an increase in the allowance. The case put to me is that the figures are bogus. Every hon. Member opposite has said that. What do they mean by that that the figure I gave of £25 million saving overstates the position and does not understate it?
Yet the Motion is for an increase. Of course, if the allowance were increased, this figure, which all hon. Members say is less than £25 million, would be even smaller, would it not? On the £100 which they maintained for five years, the saving would be negligible—a maximum, on my figures, which they may say are overstated, of £5 million a year, quite a ridiculous thing. As my right hon. Friend said, on any worth-while increase the saving becomes negligible and the Motion utterly fails on that ground alone.
The right hon. Member for Barnet said how ridiculous it was that one could import a string of Mercedes but could not spend more than £50 on a holiday. He proposed a Motion to increase the allowance. Of course, once one can spend £75, for example, abroad, it is perfectly justifiable to import as many Mercedes as one likes. It is only improper to do so when the allowance is £50.

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman must not distort my argument. I

made it clear that one cannot totally abolish the allowance without giving complete freedom of capital movement. But the Government would not dream of allowing free capital movement.

Mr. Diamond: There is certainly no intention in the foreseeable future of denying to the Government the safeguard which comes from control of capital movement. The Motion has nothing to do with that. It criticises us for not increasing the allowance. The hon. Member for Bodmin brought out that point, and another hon. Member made it clear that, although he was supporting the Motion for a limited reason, he wanted total abolition. All the other speeches were in favour of total abolition. I have made it clear that to increase the allowance would be pointless. It would cause difficulties would be of limited benefit and would save only a very small figure to the reserves. That is why we are not prepared to do it.
The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford made once more the excellent speech he delivered on a previous occasion about prestige. I think that is the only other argument which comes into this. I cannot quote what he has just said but I can quote his words on a previous occasion, since they were the same kind of words. On 30th June, in our previous debate, he said the following, quoting from his favourite author:
If the Government had wanted to set about undermining confidence in the £"—
the words he used again today—
if they wanted to blazen abroad to ordinary people like the French hotelier, the German restaurateur, the Italian taxi driver or the Swiss ski instructor, by giving the impression that our economy is in a dangerously parlous state, they could not have devised a more effective method than to send out millions of our people counting every centime, every pfennig, every lira or every cent they spend. If, as I believe is true, confidence is a critical weapon in the fight for prosperity, the sooner these niggling, irksome, illiberal and petty restrictions are abolished the better."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1969; Vol. 786, c. 97.]
It is good stuff. He was arguing that what was preventing confidence in the £ was the maintenance of this restriction.
I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman —and I am sure that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends rejoice with me, although their rejoicing is in a somewhat minor key—that since that date confidence


in the £, shown by what has been happening in the exchanges and with regard to the flow and generally throughout the world, has risen very substantially. We have seen a completely different aspect in our circumstances. There has not been one good argument for increasing

this allowance, and, therefore, I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote, as they spoke, against the Motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 294.

Division No. 19.]
AYES
[7.6 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Marten, Neil


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Maude, Angus


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Astor, John
Goodhart, Phillp
Mawby, Ray


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Awdry, Daniel
Cower, Raymond
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Grant, Anthony
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Gresham Cooke, R.
Miscampbell, Norman


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Batsford, Brian
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Monro, Hector


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus


Bell, Ronald
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Morrison, Charles (Devizos)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bessell, Peter
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Biffen, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Murton, Oscar


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Neave, Airey


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Blaker, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nott, John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Body, Richard
Hawkins, Paul
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hay, John
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Boyd-Carponter, Rt. Hn. John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brewis, John
Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Higgins, Terence L.
Pardoe, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hiley, Joseph
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hill, J. E. B.
Percival, Ian


Bryan, Paul
Hirst, Geoffrey
Peyton, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin



Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Holland, Philip
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hordem, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner


Burden, F- A.
Hornby, Richard
Pounder, Rafton


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hunt, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Carlisle, Mark
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, J. M. L.


Cary, Sir Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Francis


Channon, H. P. G.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Clark, Henry
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cooke, Robert
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees-Davies, W. R,


Cordis, John
Joplig, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Corfield, F. V.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Costain, A. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ridsdale, Julian


Crouch, David
Kershaw, Anthony
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kimball, Marcus
Robson Brown, Sir William


Currie, G. B. H.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dance, James
Lambton, Viscount
Royle, Anthony


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dean, Paul
Lane, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dodd-Parker, Douglas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Silvester, Frederick


Eden, Sir John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sinclair, Sir George


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Emery, Peter
Longden, Gilbert



Errington, Sir Eric
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Farr, John
MacArthur, Ian
Speed, Keith


Fisher, Nigel
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stainton, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McMaster, Stanley
Stodart, Anthony


Fortescue, Tim
McNalr-Wilson, Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Foster, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maddan, Martin
Tapsell, Peter


Gibson-Watt, David
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)




Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wall, Patrick
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Temple, John M.
Walters, Dennis
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)
Woodnutt, Mark


Tilney, John
Ward, Dame Irene
Worsley, Marcus


Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Weatherill, Bernard
Wright, Esmond


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wylie, N. R.


Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William



Vickers, Dame Joan
Wiggin, A. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Waddington, David
Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Mr. Jasper More and


Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Walter-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek






NOES


Abse, Leo
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Judd, Frank


Albu, Austen
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kelley, Richard


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
English, Michael
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Allen, Schotefield
Ensor, David
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Anderson, Donald
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Ashley, Jack
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Latham, Arthur


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Faulds, Andrew
Lawson, George


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fernyhough, E.
Leadbitter, Ted


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Finch, Harold
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lee, John (Reading)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric(lslington, E.)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Barnes, Michael
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)


Barnett, Joel
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Baxter, William
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Beaney, Alan
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lipton, Marcus


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ford, Ben
Lomas, Kenneth


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridge-ton)
Forrester, John
Loughlin, Charles


Bidwell, Sydney
Fowler, Gerry
Luard, Evan


Binns, John
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Bishop, E. S.
Freeson, Reginald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Blackburn, F.
Galpern, Sir Myer
McBride, Neil


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gardner, Tony
McCann, John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Garrett, W. E.
MacColl, James


Booth, Albert
Ginsburg, David
MacDermot, Niall


Boston, Terence
Golding, John
Macdonald, A. H.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McElhone, Frank


Boyden, James
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McGuire, Michael


Bradley, Tom
Gregory, Arnold
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Brooks, Edwin
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mackie, John


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mackintosh, John P.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffiths, Wilt (Exchange)
Maclennan, Robert


Brown,Bob(N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mahon, Simon (Boot:?)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hamling, William
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hannan, William
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Harper, Joseph
Manuel, Archie


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mapp, Charles


Carmichael, Neil
Haseldine, Norman
Marks, Kenneth


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hazell, Bert
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Chapman, Donald
Henig, Stanley
Maxwell, Robert


Coe, Denis
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mayhew, Christopher


Coleman, David
Hilton, W. S.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Concannon, J. D.
Hobden, Dennis
Mendelson, John


Conlan, Bernard
Hooley, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Horner, John
Millan, Bruce


Crawshaw, Richard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cronin, John
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Dalyell, Tarn
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Moonman, Eric


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Huckfield, Leslie
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hunter, Adam
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hynd, John
Moyle, Roland


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Delargy, Hugh
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Murray, Albert


Dell, Edmund
Janner, Sir Barnett
Neal, Harold


Dempsey, James
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Newens, Stan


Dewar, Donald
Jeger, George (Goole)
Norwood, Christopher


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Oakes, Gordon


Dickens, James
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ogden, Eric


Doig, Peter
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
O'Haltoran, Michael


Dunn, James A.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
O'Malley, Brian


Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oram, Albert E.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Orbach, Maurice


Eadie, Alex
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Orme, Stanley


Edelman, Maurice
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Oswald, Thomas







Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Tuck, Raphael


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Rose, Paul
Urwin, T. W.


Padley, Walter
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Varley, Eric G.


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Rowlands, E.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Paget, R. T.
Ryan, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Palmer, Arthur
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Wallace, George


Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles
Sheldon, Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Weitzman, David


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wellbeloved, James


Pavitt, Laurence
Short, Mrs. Renee(W'hampton,N.E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitlock, William


Pentland, Norman
Silverman, Julius
Wilkine, W. A.


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Slater, Joseph
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Price, William (Rugby)
Small, William
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Probert, Arthur
Snow, Julian
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Pursey, Crndr. Harry
Spriggs, Leslie
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Randall, Harry
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Rankin, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rees, Merlyn
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Winnick, David


Richard, Ivor
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Woof, Robert


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Swain, Thomas
Wyatt, Woodrow


Roberts, Cwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Taverne, Dick



Robertson John (Paisley)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'cas)
Thornton, Ernest
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Tinn, James
Mr. R. F. H. Dobson.


Roebuck, Roy
Tomney, Frank

RURAL BUS SERVICES

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I beg to move,
That this House regrets Her Majesty's Government's decision to permit the withdrawal of subsidies to those rural bus services which have replaced discontinued rail services without taking adequate steps to measure the effect on rural populations and at a time when the replacement of these subsidies by local authority support is prejudiced by the severe pressure on local government expenditure from the central Government.
Without doubt, this week has seen the pressures build up on the Minister of Transport's desk. On Tuesday, the Christmas traffic was threatened. Yesterday saw, I suppose, the gravest crisis that the British ports have ever faced. Today we are dealing with a new collapse in the rural transport industry. The Minister might wonder whether he was wise to have left the relative tranquillity of the Foreign Office. It is not as though I have a shred of hope to offer him, because the odds are 2 to 1 on that he will be sacked and not promoted at the end of his tenure of office. However, if the right hon. Gentleman believes that tomorrow never comes, I warn him that this is precisely the attitude on which so much of the Government's transport policy has been based and which has caused so many of the problems with which we are now dealing. That is why

the legacy with which this fourth Minister of Transport in four years is faced so serious and why the time for action is so imminent.
The rural bus services are, however, only a small part of the transport industry. However small they may be in turnover, in terms of human cost the situation is very poignant. We are familiar with the elderly couple who move to a quiet rural area to find that within a year or so the rail and bus links are cut off and they are without any means of communication with the neighbouring towns. We are aware of local parish councils watching young married couples taking their children away because they cannot get to play with children in neighbouring villages. We are aware of those who, because of physical handicap or the disinclination or incapacity to drive, are faced with increasing isolation in the countryside. The House is as familiar as I am with mounting costs, falling demand and deteriorating services in rural areas. The only group of people who have any incentive to cope with this problem, if it is possible to cope with it, are the local authorities directly concerned.
Local authorities have been, on the most charitable explanation, not kept in touch with the Government's attitude to rural bus services, but, at worst, have been deliberately misled about the Government's intentions in respect of certain of these services. I must take


the House back to the Transport Acts of 1962 and 1968, and particularly the 1968 Act, which is the root cause of so many of our transport problems today. As a background to the 1962 Act, it was provided that when British Railways withdrew services the bus companies might be invited to replace the rail services and that the subsidies necessary to maintain the bus services in operation would be financed and subsidised by British Railways.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) provided the ultimate protection for people living in country areas: that before any substitute bus services were withdrawn he would investigate the services which were being provided and the effects of the withdrawal. He gave no certainty of continuity, but he gave a guarantee of sympathetic investigation. The House and the Government fully accepted the implications of that policy.
The late Stephen Swingler, whom we all deeply miss in transport circles, spelt out the implications of that policy:
The additional and revised bus services are a condition of the closure being effected. If, for any reason—for example, operators being unable or unwilling to provide them, or the traffic commissioners not licensing them —they are not provided, the closure cannot take place, unless or until my right hon. Friend varies the conditions. Let that be perfectly plain. The conditions are laid down and they must be satisfied according to these terms."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1965; Vol. 712, c. 871.]
Both sides of the House accepted the full implications of that policy.
Section 54 of the 1968 Act related to these substitute services and gave the Minister power to vary the conditions, but of course Section 54 was never discussed. The Government saw to that. They guillotined it in Committee and on Report, and it was never possible for the House to examine the implications of the power which the Government took in 1968 to vary the conditions relating to the closures.
One thought which crossed nobody's mind was, not that the Government wanted to vary the conditions, but that the Government might withdraw the conditions. It was an almost inconceivable thought, but that is what was in the Government's mind. The House was not

told, neither were the local authorities. On the contrary, the right hon. Lady the First Secretary of State, then the Minister of Transport, painting a broad new horizon, said this:
The Bill will come to the rescue of rural life in two important ways. …."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1967; Vol. 756, c. 1301.]
She went on to refer to the bus grants and the flexibility in the licensing system. Who could have thought, having heard what the right hon. Lady said, that this brave new gesture to the transport industry was not to inject new services and a new vitality but was simply to finance a subsidy which, until then, had been paid by British Rail. The right hon. Lady had done two things by her enthusiastic declaration of her new policy. First, she had created a sense of expectancy in the local authorities and the travelling public. Secondly, she had taken the power to pull the carpet from underneath their feet.
Her successor, the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), gave the first jerk. On 17th January, 1969, the responsibility for the replacement services was transferred to the National Bus Company, and still, neither in this House not in local government, were the full implications of what was happening appreciated or understood. It was not until 5th May, 1969, that the ever vigilant hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), in the way that we have come to expect from him, asked the Minister of Transport in a Written Question what were the new conditions which he sought to apply under that Section. The answer to Written Question No. 68 is tucked away at the back of HANSARD and was not widely reported or commented on. Indeed, it will come as no surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, that it was neither reported nor commented on because the effects were not noticed by anybody except the Ministry of Transport.
The effect was to leave it entirely to the National Bus Company to decide whether or not substitute services which had been in existence for two years should continue. It was a rolling programme and, as year succeeded year, a new set of substitute services came up for eligibility for the "chop".
A major departure from a pledge given by the previous Minister of Transport,


my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, should at least have merited an honest public statement from the Government of what they had in mind. Before that pledge, honourably given and honourably accepted by that Government, was changed, at least somebody should have come to the Dispatch Box to tell the House and the country what the Government had in mind.
I have tried to find out the implications of all this for the local authorities by asking the only two representatives of people who have any real interest in combating the problems, the County Councils Association and the Rural District Councils Association, whether or not they were notified of the Minister's intention, and whether they ever understood the implications of Section 54 of the Transport Act, 1968. The County Councils Association replied:
In so far as I am aware, the Association has never been consulted about this change and its possible implications for local authorities.
The Rural District Councils Association replied:
The answer to both questions posed in your letter of the 25th is that the Association has not been consulted.
The House is left with one question: is this simply an act of bad communications, or is it a hope that the problem would never come to light?
I am not here to attack the view that transport costs should be borne where transport costs arise. I suspect that is the only way in which rationalisation will be brought to the industry, and we have a long way to go to achieve that result. To change to a more market-orientated economy in transport without telling people what is intended, without helping them to understand the problems that arise, and without providing transitional aid to cope with these problems is a lamentable feature of government, and the chaos resulting from this is beginning to accumulate.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Mr. Donald Anderson (Monmouth) rose—

Mr. Heseltine: I must warn the Government that the 25 per cent. fare increases, the threatened withdrawal of transport services and the mounting resentment among local authorities is as

yet nothing to what will happen as this rolling programme of decimation of the rural services continues.
I have tried to find out how the figures balance. The Ministry does not know how much it is spending this year on rural grants. It does not know what is the figure for next year. It knows that the figure for last year was nothing, and that the estimates it has provided for 1969 have not been taken up. One reason why they have not been taken up is because no one has told the local authorities the criteria which they must satisfy to be eligible for rural bus grants. The clear and inescapable fact that emerges from my investigation is that the Government today are spending less on rural bus grants than the amount of the subsidy which British Rail has withdrawn from the provision of substitute services. The brave new world of the right hon. Lady has turned out to be an economy for the national taxpayer. That might be what the Government wanted, but it is not what the Government said. The local authorities were never encouraged to understand the implications of what was coming; they were never given the opportunity to participate or to take any action.
In the meantime the Western Morning News of 13th November, 1969, reports the National Bus Company, through its spokesman Mr. E. S. Fay, Q.C., as saying that the withdrawal of the £129,000 payment to the companies by British Rail as a contribution to the cost of running services which had refused or discontinued railway services was a major factor in increasing fares. He went on to say that the National Bus Company which acquired the companies at the beginning of the year was not prepared to reimburse them this sum of money.
Similar examples are beginning to emerge from all over the country—from Devon, Cornwall, Somerset, Essex, Cambridge, Suffolk and Herefordshire. The Midland Red is seeking a discretionary fare increase in the Rural District Council of Atherstone, which will put up the fares in rural services to a greater extent than is the case on equivalent urban services.
This may be good transport economics, but I wonder how hon. Gentlemen opposite can square it with what was said by


the right hon. Lady the First Secretary of State in 1967:
The National Bus Company and the Scottish Transport Group will have strong base from which to continue cross-subsidisation of rural bus services by healthier urban ones."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1967; Vol. 756, c. 1301.]
That will come as no surprise to those of us who have laboured under the right hon. Lady's policies.
The Parliamentary Secretary then stood at the Dispatch Box in January 1968 to justify the expenditure of over £50 million of taxpayers' money in acquiring the Midland Red and British Electric Traction Bus Companies. He said they saw Exchequer payments
as a means of cutting through the vicious spiral of decreasing traffic and increasing fares which has been a feature of all bus operations over the past decade",—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th January, 1968; Vol. 756, c. 1729.]
We do not seem to have dented that spiral very successfully.
Wherever one looks the same inconsistencies apply. One finds the country buses of London being transferred to the National Bus Company at a loss so that the National Bus Company can subsidise the country bus services of London, but the country dwellers in the West Country, the Midlands and East Anglia are not permitted to do so.
It is not as if the Ministry of Transport representatives in this House even knew what was going on. As the Parliamentary Secretary will know, he told me on 13th November that there was to be no subsidy, but then, shortly afterwards, wrote to tell me that there was to be a subsidy to the National Bus Company after all.
What is urgently needed from the Government is an earnest declaration of policy in respect of rural buses. They must make it clear that they have a consistent attitude to what the ratepayer, the taxpayer and the fare-paying public at large pay. Wherever one looks one sees that their decisions are not taken on a basis of coherent transport policy, but on the basis of political opportunism and what they think they can get away with.
If local authorities are to respond to the urgent need in our rural areas, they must be given a clear declaration of what the Government intend to do. The Government must take this opportunity to experiment with a more flexible licence system,

for which we asked some two years ago. The present system was designed for the 1930s. It is administered by a Government which is designed for an age a great deal earlier than that. The system threatens to strangle transportation in rural life. If the Minister will accept the warning given to him by those of us on this side of the House, he will understand that another aspect of the Government's transport policy is crumbling. If he wishes to remove himself from personal responsibility, he has not much time left.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind hon. Members that there are many who still wish to speak and that this is a curtailed debate.

7.35 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. BobBrown): The Opposition's Motion deals with one aspect of a very important and difficult subject, namely rural transport. Greater car ownership together with de-population of the countryside over the years has caused passenger traffic on rural public transport services to fall off substantially. This has meant that these services, which at the very best have only been on the margins of viability, have become more and more under-used and more and more uneconomic; and all this has been happening in parts of the country where transport—of one sort or another—has a very special importance. So it is timely for us to look at these problems.
The Motion confines itself to
those rural bus services which have replaced discontinued rail services".
It gives the impression that there has been a complete reversal of policy, with no concern for the needs of rural dwellers, but with devastating effects which will call for massive support from local authorities made impossible by the limitations on their expenditure.
I shall seek to show that this impression is misleading and that what has been done is no more than a logical, beneficial, and businesslike extension of the existing policy.
Let us look at the facts. The Transport Act 1962 provided that any proposal to withdraw all rail passenger services from a line or station to which an objection was made must receive the Minister's prior consent. It also provided


that he could attach conditions to his consent—including conditions requiring the Railways Board to provide or assist in the provision of alternative bus services for former rail users.
Most of the bus services so prescribed by successive Ministers have been bus services already operating in the area concerned. There has never been any question of a subsidy for these, nor has the Minister intervened in their regulation by the bus companies concerned subject to the overall control of the traffic commissioners. But the conditions attached to closure consents also often include conditions relating to additional bus services.
Until the Transport Act 1968, British Railways had to arrange with individual bus operators for such services to be put on after being duly licensed by the traffic commissioners. British Railways also met any deficits which these services might incur. The services could not be withdrawn or substantially reduced without the Minister's express approval. Some, but not all, of these services were in rural areas.
One of the features of the "new deal" for the railways announced in the White Paper on Railway Policy in November, 1967, was that the Railways Board should not be burdened with losses on socially necessary rail services, and that the community should explicitly take financial responsibility for such services. It was consistent with this philosophy that the board should also be relieved of its subventions towards rail replacement bus services. This cost, which in 1968 was running at the rate of £1 million a year, was part of the general deficit of the Railways Board which had to be met out of the annual Exchequer grant.
In paragraphs 59 to 61 of the subsequent White Paper on Public Transport and Traffic, Cmnd. 3481, the Government announced that the financial responsibility for these bus services was to be transferred from the Railways Board to the National Bus Company and the Scottish Transport Group. The White Paper said that the negotiation of contracts for bus services—

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the financial responsibility. To the best of my recollection, the White Paper did not mention the word "financial".

Mr. Brown: The responsibility was clearly that of British Rail.
The White Paper said that the negotiation of contracts for bus services was not a proper activity for the Railways Board. It made it clear that the cost of providing additional rail replacement bus services had been taken into account in settling the financial duties of the N.B.C. and the S.T.G. These two bodies could provide the services either through one of their own subsidiary companies or by contracting with another operator to run a particular service. They would also take over from the Railways Board responsibility for existing contracts with private operators and would in future negotiate the renewal of such contracts. If an individual operator was not prepared to have his contract transferred to one of the two new bodies, it would have to remain with the Railways Board until it ran out.
Section 54 of the Transport Act, 1968, also enabled the Minister to attach conditions to his closure consents relating to the provision of alternative services by or through the N.B.C. or the S.T.G. which were to bear the cost of such services.
At this point, let me remind the House that the change of ownership of the nationalised bus industry from the Transport Holding Company to the National Bus Company and the Scottish Transport Group gave the industry a substantial financial benefit. Under the 1962 Act the Transport Holding Company had to pay to the Minister part of the surplus that it made each year. On average, the bus side was contributing about £2 million to £3 million a year to the Exchequer.
The 1968 Act stopped this. There is now no requirement for the N.B.C. and S.T.G. to make any payment to the Minister on the former T.H.C. assets they now own. Moreover, the former B.E.T. companies which are now in the N.B.C. no longer have to think about dividends for the shareholders.
This change made it possible totrans-fer the financial burden of the rail replacement services to the N.B.C. and S.T.G. and still require them to break even. The Government were in effect, saying to them, "We will not meet the cost of these subventions as, in practice, we did with the Railways Board. Instead, we will


relieve you of the requirement to make extra surpluses and make payments to us." In fact, the Government are helping them even further, and other sections of the bus industry too by other measures introduced by our 1968 Act. Under this, the N.B.C. will receive in the current year some £1½ million in additional fuel tax rebate, and it received over £2 million a year from the 25 per cent. grant towards its expenditure on new buses. That is not a small financial contribution.
The financial duty of the N.B.C. and the S.T.G. is set out in Section 41 of the 1968 Act. They have to break even after taking account of
all charges which are proper to be made to revenue account".
These have to be worked out. In any circumstances it takes time, and, in the case of the N.B.C, it had to create a new organisation, both operational and financial, when it took over the bus interests of the T.H.C. at the beginning of this year. All this was a brand-new organisation which had to be set up. So we have had this interregnum while the financial targets are being worked out.
Unfortunately this year the companies have been faced with sharply increased costs—largely arising from negotiated wage increases. So many of them have had to make application for increases in fares before they know precisely what financial targets the N.B.C. intended to lay down for them.
As a purely interim arrangement, therefore, the subsidiary companies have tended to spell out in their applications the effect on their finances of all the changes that have taken place since their last applications—as they have seen them at the time. By far the main factor has been the wage increases. On the debit side, they have also shown the payments previously made by the Railways Board. They have had offsetting credits; for example, the reduction in costs from the fuel duty rebate. From the evidence I have seen, they seem in the main to have adopted a very reasonable attitude in this interim period of claiming fares increases which would produce well below the total increases in their net costs.
All this was spelled out in the White Paper on Public Transport and Traffic

(Cmnd. 3481), and I invite the Opposition to read carefully in particular paragraphs 58 to 61.
In answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) on 5th May last to which the hon. Gentleman referred, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) gave the House a progress report on the implementation of this policy. He said that the obligation in relation to services operated, or arranged, by their own subsidiaries had already been transferred to the N.B.C. and the S.T.G. He also said that negotiations about the transfer of responsibility to the N.B.C. for services run by independent and municipal operators were now to take place. These negotiations have not yet been completed. He also informed the House of a modification in the procedure. Formerly, the Minister's explicit consent was required for changes in the additional bus services, however long ago the rail closure had taken place.
In passing, perhaps I might say to the hon. Gentleman that if he thinks that my former Minister's statement was neither reported on nor commented on, he should have a word with his research department in Smith Square. Clearly, it has not been keeping him "genned up".
These additional services in practice are no different from all the other bus services in the area, which were already operating before the railway service was closed. They represent the best estimate which can be made at the time the closure is being considered of what provision is likely to be needed, over and above that offered by the existing services. But the additional services are considered, instituted, and in practice operated, by the bus operator as part of the general services in the area.
It was reckoned that after the rail service was closed the travelling public would take some time to adapt itself to the new circumstances. A new pattern of travel would emerge, which was not necessarily possible to predict with any adequacy when the closure was under consideration.
The responsibility of the National Bus Company and its subsidiaries is to provide, as far as practicable and subject to the necessary approval and consent of the traffic commissioners, the bus services


necessary to meet the needs of the travelling public in all the areas they serve, including those areas where rail services have been closed.
It was therefore thought quite logical and reasonable that after two years— during which the new travel patterns would have established themselves—it could safely be left to the National Bus Company to decide what pattern of bus services best met the local needs. Moreover, its operations were subject to the control and supervision of the traffic commissioners.
There is thus no question of the N.B.C. suddenly withdrawing these services which originally replaced closed railways, nor of local authorities being suddenly faced with an unexpected burden in terms of rural bus grants if they want them to continue. These services will already be part of the N.B.C.'s general network of services, and the N.B.C. will accept the same responsibility for them as it does for its non-paying services generally—by cross-subsidisation.
Some of these services—and the same applies to rural services in areas which have never had a railway—may sooner or later come into the category where, although they may be needed on social grounds, receipts are so low that no bus operator can be expected to maintain them without special financial help. This problem was recognised by the Jack Committee, appointed by the party opposite, which reported in 1961. I might ask at this stage why, when the party opposite introduced the 1962 Act, they did not take into it the recommendation of the Jack Committee and cater for rural services?
But the Government have thought of this problem, too. We have brought in the rural bus grant scheme so that local authorities can give financial help to these services with the central Government making a direct contribution of 50 per cent. This is an important new power, and we hope local authorities in all rural areas will look very carefully at the needs of their populace to see what assistance could, with advantage, be provided. This is directly in line with the recommendation of the Jack Committee which the party opposite completely ignored.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds) rose—

Mr. Brown: I will not give way. I have not time. Many back benchers want to speak and, in fairness to them, I cannot give way.
So far we have had comparatively few approaches from any of them about these new powers. We have had discussions with them, and several councils are going ahead with small schemes. One very interesting development pioneered in Devon is that several local authorities have in mind to co-ordinate their policy within their county so that there can be a uniform approach to the problem and a planned allocation of resources. This will obviously be useful, particularly where the services provided by a predominantly rural bus operator are getting to the stage where help is needed for a number of them. So if any local authority wants to go ahead with a scheme, or to get advice about one, my Ministry will be glad to hear from them.
The last part of the Motion suggests that all this is useless because the local authorities are being asked to restrict their expenditure so severely. It is right for them to have the prime responsibility because transport should be a local responsibility. But the Government will be assisting them with over three-quarters of their costs. Rural bus grants by local authorities attract a direct grant of 50 per cent. But the 50 per cent. of cost falling on local authorities is taken into the reckoning of the rate support grant, which provides some 56 per cent. of local authority expenditure.
We know that local authorities are facing difficulties over their finances. But certainly the cost to them of any conceivable rural bus grants is marginal, to say the least—even in the transport scene. Their own expenditure on roads and public lighting was £422 million in 1968–69. It is a question of the priorities that they themselves set, and surely there is room for assistance to public transport.
From what I have said I hope that the House will agree that there is no question of the Government having contemplated as a general policy that rail replacement bus services—any more than any other lightly used services in urban as well as rural areas—should in future have to stand on their own feet so that if they could not pay they would be withdrawn unless the local authority met their cost.
What the Government have done is to transfer financial responsibility from one nationalised body, where it was not appropriate to two other nationalised bodies better fitted to the task, and to enable the transport needs of areas where rail services have been closed to be assessed as a whole and met in a flexible and integrated way by the operators on the spot and best qualified to form a judgment.
I am quite sure that these operators— the National Bus Company and the Scottish Transport Group—can be relied on to give rural dwellers a square deal and to show by their actions that the Opposition's Motion is very wide of the mark.
The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) asked for an honest and clear declaration of our policy. I feel that I have satisfied the House in satisfying him.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. Many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. Mr. Pardoe.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: I must admit to being somewhat bewildered by the wording of the Motion, although I am in sympathy with any expression from the Conservative benches that the Government have no rural transport policy. I am not sure whether the Motion is asking us to say that the Government have done the wrong or the right thing. I fully understand that they promised one thing and, whatever the Parliamentary Secretary said, undoubtedly did another. That is absolutely true. But is what they promised right and what they have done wrong, or is it that what they promised was wrong and what they have done is now right?
The Motion does not offer any hope to rural transport passengers in North Cornwall, which is vitally affected by the whole pattern of rural transport. If the subsidies on these limited services were implemented, they would not make a great deal of difference. The difference would be marginal and, indeed, transitory, because rural transport is undoubtedly in decline. It has been in

decline for almost as long as anybody in this House can remember, and for a variety of reasons.
First, it exhibits all the classic ingredients of an industry in decline. For instance, it has personnel who are subject to an appallingly low morale because of the decline of the industry. They exhibit a sense of hopelessness in dealing with the problems taken to them by the travelling public. Their hopelessness is the only way that they can face the frustration and anger of the travelling public. I have sympathy with anyone working in this industry because nothing can be more depressing than to work in a hopeless industry.
Secondly, it is an industry in decline because of increasing prices, increasing costs, about which we have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary, and, of course, the vicious circle which, because of the decline, means that costs will inevitably increase. To travel around by bus in North Cornwall is for many people, particularly those on supplementary benefit and the greater part of those who do not have private transport, virtually prohibitive. Because it is prohibitive there are fewer passengers, and those passengers are making fewer journeys. National buses in the rural areas of Cornwall at any time of day or night are invariably empty, or have just one or two passengers.
Thirdly, there is an inevitable desire on the part of those running the industry to crowd in a few more stops between the main points. This slows down the journey between the bigger towns from where the bulk of the traffic comes. This makes for longer journeys, so the whole thing goes on declining.
The reasons for the decline of rural transport are fairly easy to adduce. We have more cars. Cornwall has a particularly high incidence of car ownership in the population. This is not because people in Cornwall are wealthier than elsewhere, but because they cannot get around without a car. In fact, very few people can get to work without a car. So we find people in Cornwall on a low level of family income having to give a high priority of that income to the ownership of a car.
There has also been an increasing centralisation of the population in towns in


rural areas. This can be seen, for instance, by the varying demand for council houses in the villages, which has almost dried up. More and more we find that people do not want to live in the villages; they want to live in the towns.
Moreover, like most industries in decline, rural transport in Cornwall is caught with the wrong sort of equipment and the wrong sort of organisation to adapt to a modern 20th century task. Most of the buses are designed for bigger loads. Indeed, they cannot be diverted to pick up a few passengers from this or that hamlet because they are too big for the lanes. Because of the introduction of a new size of bus, it is often found that they have to change routes and miss out certain villages or hamlets. This is what I mean when I say that they are caught with the wrong kind of equipment and the wrong kind of investment. Unfortunately, because the industry is in decline, it has no capital to adapt. Therefore, it is forced to make do with existing buses, which will never be profitable because they are the wrong kind of equipment.
If the industry is in decline, what should we do about it? How do we ensure that rural transport remains? Indeed, is it necessary that there should be any kind of public rural transport? The first essential element in the demand for public rural transport is from those people without cars. I accept that in Cornwall we have a larger incidence of ownership, but, nevertheless, there is still a very large proportion of the population who do not have cars. Perhaps it is a declining proportion, because to a large extent it is made up of older people who never did have cars, and therefore perhaps have never qualified as drivers, or who do not drive, or who cannot drive for health reasons, and perhaps people who are too young to drive.
The second major factor of this demand for public transport in rural areas comes from housewives whose husbands have cars and use them to get to work, with the result that the housewife has no car to fetch her children from school, to do the shopping, or to lead any kind of free existence. But housewives need cars for reasons other than doing the shopping and taking their children around. The

influx of new industries into some of these development areas means that there is at least a demand for their services in light industrial works, but, unfortunately, it is virtually impossible for them to get to that work.
I have here a letter from the manager of one of the new factories at Launceston He says:
The general difficulty of bringing employees in to work from the villages is one of the company's main anxieties.
I have had repeated discussions with the industries in that town, and in other parts of the constituency, to try to solve that problem, but I do not believe that it can be solved through the existing National Bus Company.
This factor of no transport to bring labour in from the villages, labour which is there and anxious to work, is grossly uneconomic, because it means that these people are living on unemployment pay, or supplementary benefits, when they could be deriving wages in the factories, and the lack of transport is inhibiting industrial and economic progress.
Another factor is the tremendous demand in rural areas for school transport, and I do not see how, in assessing the whole problem of rural transport, and whether we ought to be paying subsidies, we can separate that from the massive problem of school transport. Earlier this week I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he would amend the regulations relating to school transport to bring them into line with new factors such as the massive incidence of traffic on the roads. The idea that a child of eight could walk two miles to school may well have been all right in the early fifties, but with the massive incidence of traffic that we now have, it is dangerous.
The factor of school transport is of immense importance, as some figures which I have from the Cornwall Education Committee show. Conveyance costs alone in 1967 were £218,000. The total number of children for whom conveyance was provided was 10,900, nearly 11,000. There were 36,000 children who were not conveyed. In addition, there were 1,250 children who had permissive seats on contract conveyances and paid a flat rate of 15s. for that. The total cost in 1967 of return pupil journeys was £2,187,000,


and they cost almost exactly 2s. per journey. If one compares that with the total number of public transport journeys in the area of Cornwall, one sees that that is an immensely important item in the total number of journeys being traversed. It is true that the education committee is keeping certain buses going on school services in order to ensure that the N.B.C. keeps those buses operating on a scheduled service for later in the day. It could well provide school transport services at less cost if it were to do that by private contract, or even by owning its own buses.
What are the solutions? First, there is the solution of subsidy, which the Motion is primarily about. I want to express the dangers of this. I had hoped that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was going to honour us with the kind of speech that he made during the hotel debate, when he came in late in the proceedings and told his Front Bench rather more of what they ought to know about economies than they apparently knew.
There are grave dangers in accepting too facilely the idea that we can go on subsidising the running costs of all rural transport  ad infinitum. How do we know that we shall have the subsidised services where they are needed? How do we know that the subsidies are going where they are most needed? In rural areas the problem is one of deciding the minimum demand which justifies the provision of a public service, and there is a chronic lack of market information on which to base this.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party commissioned a report from a private consultant on the transport problems of his constituency of North Devon. One phrase of that report reads:
… a field where"—
it is talking about rural transport—
for 40 years it has been generally assumed that the producer knows best.
That is what I mean when I say that there is a chronic lack of market information. There is no point in going on subsidising these services for the sake of it if they are unwanted services, and if there are no objective criteria on which to decide whether they are wanted or not.
I accept that a local council—and this, I think, is the point which the Tory Front Bench is making—can undoubtedly judge better than the Government or the National Bus Company exactly where these services should be, but it cannot judge it better than the consumer, and I should much rather have a market orientated service in the long run.
Moreover, those who want public transport are not necessarily the people who pay the highest rates. If one bears in mind the incidence of water supplies in rural areas, one appreciates the prejudice against spending rates to supply mains water to the people who pay the lowest rates. It is this attitude which will be prevalent in providing subsidies for rural bus services.
I do not think that the attitude of local authorities will be very generous. From my experience of trying to persuade them to take up the Government's idea that they should supply concessionary fares to old-age pensioners I know only too well that it is virtually impossible. When the Bill was passed, I wrote to all eight local councils in my constituency. Every one of them said that the pensioner was the problem of the Central Government, and that they did not want to know about it. The problem of persuading them to do this is somewhat difficult.
I think that subsidies must be regarded with great care, and indeed scepticism, and it seems to me that if we are to have subsidies—

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of his local authorities subsidising old-age pensioners, or against it?

Mr. Pardoe: I see no reason why local authorities should not come to an arrangement with existing bus companies if a scheme can be adapted, and I put forward a scheme whereby that could be done.
In the general context of rural bus services, if we are to pay subsidies at all, I want them paid only in the short term. They should be capital subsidies which enable rural bus services to adapt to the new situation. I do not want them to be running cost subsidies at all, because no community can have any self-respect if it is dependent on charity. I do not


want the rural areas of Cornwall to become Red Indian reservations.
Rural transport policy should be a policy, not to provide subsidies  ad infinitum, but to adapt and overhaul rural transport so that it can stand on its own feet. What is needed is an acceptance of the fact that fare stage operations in rural areas is virtually dead. There is no future for it. The N.B.C. loses money on its fare stage operations throughout the South-West, and it makes it up by mystery tours and contract work. We need much greater flexibility than fare stage operations can offer. We want buses where they are wanted, for those who want them, and subscription co-operative transport associations if necessary. The difficulty of setting these up is a capital one. It is also a difficulty of persuading the local bus companies to accept competition on their routes.
The last matter is the need to use existing services to a much greater extent. I have already mentioned school transport. Although school buses run at odd times of the day for most passengers, they could be used to a greater extent than they are now by the travelling public. A great deal of hospital transport crosses these rural areas and is not used by the general travelling public. It could be so used. In my constituency, the members of a doctors' practice recently wrote to me saying that they are now, having invested considerable sums of money—not all theirs: some of it is the Government's —in providing new practice premises in five areas, making soundings about a practice minibus. That would save an immense amount of time in running the practice, but there are major difficulties in raising capital. I hope that the Government will consider this carefully.
By using these sorts of services, by extending the contract system, by admitting that the fare stage is dead and should be buried as a rural transport concept, I believe that the Government will be able, in the long term, to do far more to help rural transport stand on its own feet. I shall vote for the Motion, not because I agree with every dot of every i or the cross on every t, but simply because it is the Government's job to bring a rural transport Bill before us, and this they have manifestly failed to do.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I do not intend to detain the House very long, because some of my hon. Friends are keen to speak. But I wanted to refer to the fascinating display given by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Heseltine). I do not think hon. Members opposite realise what they are doing. They seem to be convinced that they should advocate the running of uneconomic rural bus services, which should be paid for ever from public subsidy. They would never adopt this philosophy for private enterprise or in their own businesses and it is not to be found in the strand which holds the Tory Party together. They believe that the profit motive is the deciding factor and that whatever is not making a profit should go into oblivion and wither away. One of the Whips there, the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson), has often advocated this in the country and I am sure that he would not deny it tonight.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Tavistock has left us. He talked of the massive resentment of local authorities about this. The uneconomic services of British Rail could not be carried for ever, and I am pleased that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) recognised this. Obviously, it would have been grossly unfair on British Rail to have to continue shouldering that onerous burden. If, after two years, the Government decided that they would transfer these services to the National Bus Company, the people in the area would have a second avenue, because the local authority could come to a very good arrangement whereby the deficit would be halved between it and the Government.
We should not forget that, although the growth of the motor car has caused many problems in these areas, it has strengthened the rating return because more garages have been built. If the local authority wants some return here, they should allow more garages to be built, and the provision of more cars which weakens the rural bus services could help to pay for the continuation of the bus services.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—

Mr. Manuel: No, the hon. Member is very good in other debates, on America and so on, but I do not want to give way now.
Another point which should be driven home is that these services replaced withdrawn rail services. Local authorities can get massive help for replacement services from the Government. Surely hon. Members opposite would not say that we should continue to support the philosophy that British Rail, which cut out very uneconomic rail services should for ever carry a loss on the bus services which replace them. If we have done this for two years, we are doing quite well.
I would advise local authorities to go into this in detail and accept this gift from the Government. A Tory Government would never have offered this. I went right through the Committees on the 1962 Transport Act before many of these youngsters came into the House, blown in like froth at a general election that little material considerations was given to the real problems. But now they come along with transport philosophies, many of which cannot be considered if we are thinking in terms of a healthy rail system and of treating other transport services as they should be treated.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: I recognise the vested interests of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) in the railway system, but have not been accustomed hitherto to hearing him as a champion of the rural bus services. He did not seem to advance the argument much further than the Parliamentary Secretary did, which was not very far, apart from a vicious, quite unprovoked attack upon my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond. Yorks (Mr. Kitson). It is clearly understood that Whips are muzzled and cannot defend themselves on these occasions. It seems unfair to pick on an hon. Member who has the largest rural constituency in England and attack him as having adopted a Powellite line, to the detriment of rural bus services. I am sure that my hon. Friend frequently supported the subsidisation of rural bus services by various means—and quite right too.
The Parliamentary Secretary did not answer the attack made by my hon.

Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine). In a speech which had obviously been carefully prepared before my hon. Friend spoke, he omitted to include an answer to the gravamen of the attack, which is simply that these bus services have now been removed from a special position, with the guarantee which was clearly understood in advance, and have been put in a position which, as the Parliamentary Secretary himself said, is exactly the same as those of the other bus services run by the rural bus companies.
This is precisely what we complain about. It is no good the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire saying that the local authorities can give massive help. They cannot, in this instance—

Mr. Manuel: Mr. Manuel rose—

Mr. Maude: No, the hon. Gentleman would not give way and I know that that was what he said—

Mr. Manuel: I said that the Government would help.

Mr. Maude: Local authorities will still have a considerable responsibility to undertake.
The removal of the special position which these services have had is alarming those who rely on rural bus services where rail services have been closed down. This particularly applies to those who are faced with the future closure of rural railway lines, for they know that the arguments which were put forward at the time of the inquiry—I have a case like this in my constituency—have now been changed.
Local authorities which will be relied on for this massive assistance were not consulted before this change was made, and this is a genuine criticism of the Government's action. These services have been put in the same position as rural bus services, which are subject to a continuous downward spiral of service. This worries the people who use these services.
The Parliamentary Secretary was challenged to produce a policy for rural bus services which would be some encouragement to the people who rely on them. He gave no encouragement and there is no reason to suppose that the situation will improve. As for the special services, it is clear that the position will


get worse—and we know from experience that the ordinary rural bus services are getting worse all the time. Thus, the position of village dwellers and others who rely on local services is becoming progressively more serious.
I do not blame the bus undertakings for this state of affairs. I never have. I have always consulted the local management when an issue has come up, and I am satisfied that local managements are right when they say that, with costs rising and with the number of motor cars increasing, it is becoming progressively more difficult for them to operate economically.
We know this to be true, and when I get complaints from a small village about the absence or cutting back of a service I go to great trouble to discover the potential number of travellers that the village is likely to raise. I often find that the number is four, five or six, It is clear that a normal bus is a totally uneconomic undertaking in such circumstances. There is far too little flexibility in the choice of buses and services.
Moreover, this is a downward spiral because, as costs increase, rural services serving small villages or acting as feeders to main routes become less profitable. Fares are raised, not only on those services, but on other routes which are subsidising the smaller and less frequented routes. Then passengers drop off, even on the profitable routes, as the result of fares being increased. The total result for urban and rural bus services is lower profitability, a lower rate of use of the capital involved and a downward spiral of service to all.
At some stage somebody must make up his mind about what must be done in this situation. I am not saying that any Government have really faced this problem entirely, but it must be faced before long. The private motor car will not meet this problem and some new thinking is required. Either we must recognise that this is a matter for subsidy, because it is a social service, or find another solution; but I would prefer to find an alternative solution, and to this extent I agree with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe).
We may have to put services for very short routes out to tender to small private contractors with vans or mini buses, the

contract going to the contractor who requires the lowest subsidy. We could see how that worked out for one year and at the end of that time it might be possible to lower the subsidy.
Sooner or later the Government must consider the possibility of doing what is done in other countries which is using the postal service for passenger transport. We have small postal vans going to every village and travelling almost every route at some stage in the early morning and often in the afternoon and evening as well, delivering and later collecting.
As these vans must be replaced, it should be possible to replace them with dual purpose vehicles. I appreciate that this might be difficult, for security reasons, for the Post Office, but I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of man to devise a system to use the postal services—full-time labour is already being used and a considerable amount of fuel is consumed for the loads carried—for passengers, too. I hope that we will have the Minister's views on this subject.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Charles Dickens defined a hypocrite as being like a signpost which points the way to go somewhere but never goes there itself. Opposition spokesmen who have taken part in this debate are guilty of this sort of thing. On the one hand we have had strident cries of cutting public expenditure and going back to the harsh law of the market a la Powell, but when it comes to the crunch they come out in theory in opposition as much softer. We have had a similar exercise over agricultural price support. We first heard about supporting the farming community through the market, then there were the braces and now the belt and braces as a result of the latest Press conference of the shadow spokesman for agriculture.
What is the history of this rural bus problem? Clearly, as the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) suggested, it is the problem of an industry in decline faced with the massive onset of the motor car. The Jack Committee in 1961 recognised this and recommended a fifty-fifty share of subsidy between central and local government. This was of course ignored in the subsequent 1962


Act which led to a wholesale series of rail closures and has led in part to the problem we are discussing.
I recall my right hon. Friend who is now Minister of Defence, Equipment, saying that whenever hon. Members opposite complained to him on behalf of their constituents about rail closures in their areas he had in his pocket their voting records on the 1962 Act and brought them out to suggest that they might have thought of raising those objections when voting on that Measure.
The leading spokesman for the Opposition this evening suggested that the Government were wrong in removing these bus services set up after rail closures from the privileged position they now enjoy. Part of the answer is that one cannot expect these bus services instituted after rail closures, indefinitely to have such a privileged position. One has to look at the total rural bus services to make the best assessment. Of course there is no reason for alarm given the policy so far pursued by the National Bus Company and the financial assistance to the N.B.C. which the Parliamentary Secretary outlined.
The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) quoted from letters he had received from the County Councils Association and the Rural District Councils Association saying that they had not been consulted. I am sure that if in those letters they had gone on to complain about the action the Government have taken, the hon. Member would have been very quick to have continued quoting from those letters. He did not do so and that omission is very significant.
The hon. Member also suggested that the withdrawal of this subvention had been a major factor in the increase in costs of the South-West group of companies. I had assumed that this point would be raised and I came armed with figures of what he called a major contribution to increased costs. According to the figures the bust companies put before the Traffic Commissioners, the total in increased costs of the three companies since the last fares increase application was made was over £500,000. Of this the loss of subvention by British Railways for the replacement bus services was £129,999, showing the "major factor" which the hon. Member sug-

gested. Even if we were to assume that the whole of the loss of subvention had to be made up by fares increases, the average effect on fares would be just over 2 per cent. on this account.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Sock it to him.

Mr. Anderson: I am socking it to him.
This is the "major factor" in escalating costs suggested by the hon. Member for Tavistock. It is rather useful that one can answer this by the relevant figures. The 1968 Act adopted the Jack solution of a fifty-fifty subvention by local authorities and the Government. This is likely to provide the best solution in the short term, relieving British Rail of social costs and transferring them to the other nationalised body by putting a social obligation, not on British Rail but on the N.B.C.
Having tried to expose what I consider the very opportunist attack by the Opposition, I agree that there is a very real problem in rural transport today. I was very struck by two cases recently brought to me. One was in the Llanthony Valley in my constituency where an isolated old person told me that she was afraid to ask people who were using their cars to go to town to transport her when the bus service had been removed. She was a completely isolated unit as a result of the withdrawal of the rural bus service.
In another case in my constituency, a public meeting was called to discuss the impending withdrawal of the local service and a poor farmer said that rich commuters living around him said, "We don't want a bus service; we all have cars." This poor chap was afraid to speak up and his sole communication with the outside world has been cut off.
I know of several groups of council houses in my area which now stand empty because of the changing pattern in the countryside and the withdrawal of rural bus services. The solution of course lies in part in the subsidy arrangements which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary outlined. It can also be tackled in a much more imaginative way. Ways have been suggested by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). One suggestion was that Post Office vans should be used. One is now operating in Machynlleth in Montgomeryshire. The use of school buses to transport isolated people in the countryside, and any other


means of public transport, such as hospital mini buses, would help.
The other provision of the 1968 Act providing concessionary bus fares for old people in the countryside should also help to solve this problem. These, with the subvention described, should go part of the way to solve the problem.
I am confident that the House will reject this very opportunist Motion.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Eleven years ago the Council for Wales established a committee to inquire into the question of rural transport in Wales. That Committee antedated the Jack Committee by about a year, but its findings were almost exactly the same as those of the Jack Committee. The conclusions of the Committee under the chairmanship of Professor Aaron were:
The Council are satisfied that, while minor alleviations may be possible, the problem cannot be solved without some provision for financial assistance from outside the industry itself.
It found that
the decline in rural bus services has caused hardship and serious inconvenience' to a significant minority of people in Welsh rural areas.
Nothing was done after those Reports were published. Ten years later still nothing has been done. The position in England is similar to that in Wales but is not as acute. The position in Wales is very grave because of the great social affliction of depopulation. It is not only rural depopulation, but it is found to a great extent in rural areas, it is true. The populations of eight of the 13 Welsh counties are smaller today than they were in 1921. The equivalent number in England would be 24 counties; but in fact not one English county has a smaller population than it had in 1921.
Although depopulation has many deep seated causes, the matter of transport is an important contributory cause. It aggravates the situation. In my constituency, which is a very large one geographically, a substantial number of small rural communities are now completely isolated in the matter of public transport. Since the Reports of the Aaron and Jack Committees were published, many Welsh railway lines have been closed. This has aggravated the situation. No assistance

has yet been given to rural bus companies. Many such companies in my constituency are in serious difficulties. In two cases which have occurred recently the difficulties were caused by the recent closure of lines—that is, within the last few years—and by the withdrawal of the public bus services. Places with lovely names like Llanartlnau and Llanpumpsaint now have no services.
The inhabitants often have to work in the nearest town. The population of Carmarthen, which is only 13,000 by night, rises to 27,000 to 28,000 during the day. People must come in from rural areas to work in Carmarthen. They are finding it very difficult, and the difficulty is growing.
I have just had another instance of this kind of thing. The village of Penygroes has lost its bus service. People there—about 30 of them—used to use the bus to go into Llandeilo to work. Many of them have been unable to continue working at Llandeilo and have had to find employment elsewhere, which is a great hardship.
The situation also affects the schools, especially the secondary schools which in rural districts draw pupils from a very wide geographical area. One of my boys is now taking part in the school play, which means that he must stay at school after school hours for the rehearsals. Such extra-curricular activities are very difficult for rural children to take part in. But for a bus running from Llandovery to Llangadog, he would be unable to take part in the play, and the service is in serious jeopardy. Thought is being given to withdrawing it, which is a grave matter for people in my constituency.
We have heard tonight from many hon. Members that the main cause of the problem is the great increase in the ownership of cars. It has become increasingly difficult for people in rural areas without cars even to get to work.
But there are other matters which put the rural bus companies in a grave predicament. It is almost impossible for many of them to carry on. The growth of television has meant that cinemas have closed, and they are still closing. Shopping in towns is made less necessary by the growth of mobile shops and so on. Whatever one may say about the speed of rural buses, there is no doubt about


the speed at which their operational costs are rising and their custom is declining. In this crisis of their existence, at least six companies in my constituency have made appeals for public assistance. They have said that they cannot carry on unless it is quickly forthcoming. Two or three companies have already gone out of operation.
Therefore, a situation is developing in rural Wales in which only people who can afford cars will be able to live in the countryside. A Welshman looks with envy at Switzerland in this matter as in so many others. The Swiss Post Office operates the kind of service that two hon. Members have suggested tonight. We have an experiment along those lines in Wales, but not long ago Switzerland could boast that not a single bus service run with the mail had been withdrawn, although even as long ago as 1958 75 of the 440 routes in Switzerland averaged only three or four passengers. There is reason for us to look with envy at that kind of situation. Alas, we are not governed as efficiently as the Swiss, and are not likely to be from this place. There is no hope for that kind of public support for our rural bus services in Wales.
But a substantial amount of public financial assistance is absolutely necessary, and it is needed most urgently if we are to retain even the skeleton services that we now have. I hope that it is not too much to ask that within six months assistance will be forthcoming from public funds so that those services which survive will be kept in existence. It would cost only a small fraction of the £250 million that the Government have just written off for London Transport.
Welsh local authorities, including my own county authority for Carmarthen, are very anxious to help. I do not think that there would be any difficulty in getting them to co-operate. They are impatiently awaiting a communication from the Welsh Office. The Secretary of State, whom I am glad to see here tonight, has told me that he will before long give them a code of guidance. I hope that financial help can be speedily organised.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I have been in this House for nearly two and a half years and it is a long time

since I heard such hypocritical humbug from hon. Members opposite as we have suffered tonight. Essentially, what we are discussing are the Tory chickens of 1962 coming home to roost. No doubt the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), when he comes to wind up, will make great play of the safeguards which the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), when he was Minister of Transport, was thought to have inserted in that famous, monumental structure which devoured the railways— the Transport Act, 1962.
If the hon. Gentleman carefully examines how effective those safeguards were and are, he will see that what has happened in case after case is that, very quietly, bus companies have applied to withdraw their services, and have consulted the traffic commissioners, which have said that they could not find sufficient evidence of demand and have consequently consented to the withdrawals. I would not mind betting that the hon. Gentleman will not produce any figures, because he would not like to, of the number of bus services which have been withdrawn despite the safeguards which the right hon. Member for Wallasey was supposed to have inserted in the 1962 Act. But if those safeguards were not adequate, that is another reflection on the Tory policy which led to the Act.
In 1961 the Jack Committee represented that, on a subsidy by contract basis, the central Government and the local authorities should contribute 50–50 to rural bus services. What did the party opposite do? Nothing. In 1962 a second study in Wales and Monmouthshire was initiated and gave a slightly different recommendation. It recommended that a subsidy should be paid by the traffic commissioners. What happened? Nothing. What happened when the Tory Party in 1961 instituted a rather similar inquiry, for perhaps rather similar reasons, which came to be called the Highland transport inquiry? That inquiry again recommended subsidies, by a different authority. Again, there was no action. We now have the spectacle of the Tory Party lamenting the withdrawal of subsidies when, in office, they did nothing about three consecutive reports which lay before them recommending the use of subsidies for rural transport.
On top of that, in the 1962 Act they ensured that, by restricting the powers of the Transport Users' Consultative Committees so that they could only consider hardship, more and more railway closures than ever before could take place. One of the things which sickened many people, both inside and outside the House, was that some hon. Members opposite, having voted eagerly for the Act and for the Beeching Plan, were the first to go cap-in-hand to the Ministry of Transport when their own particular railway lines were due to be axed.
We shall see the same thing under the Transport Act, 1968. The same Tories sitting opposite tonight fought tooth and nail against that Act, voting against the railway subsidies and the bus subsidies that it included. But as soon as their bus services or railway lines start to be affected, they run to the Ministry to the steps of St. Christopher House with their begging bowls.
This is why we are having such an unparalleled barrage of humbug from the benches opposite tonight. We have had many examples cited to us of the rather different financial arrangements which now exist under the 1968 Act. If the hon. Member for Worcester wants to appreciate some of the unparalleled financial arrangements introduced by his party when in office, he should look at the 1962 Act.
This was an Act which placed pretty well the same obligations on British Rail as the 1968 Transport Act places on the National Bus Company; namely, the duty of making a return on capital, but at the same time subsidising services which no one else wants to subsidise. What happened when there was a conflict under the 1962 Act between the duty to make the railways pay and the duty to keep uneconomic services going? The uneconomic services were discontinued, without the kind of safeguards to which the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) has referred. Yet the hon. Member has the cheek to come here and accuse this side of the House of trying to follow his party's example in the 1962 Act. It is not so.
The 1968 Act has improved the situation in the country. Let me refer to some of the speeches made by the hon. Member in Committee and on Report during the 1968 Bill. It was that same

Member who steadfastly day after day and night after night defended the present system. "It's O.K.", he said, "Keep the traffic commissioners. They are doing a very good job. Although conditions in the countryside might be getting a little worse, let us keep the system going as it is." Yet that same hon. Member tonight makes a massive attack on the traffic commissioners because he says the whole system is falling to pieces. I suggest that either the Tory research department at Smith Square, if there still is one, or at least his own research assistant, tries to write some kind of continuity into his speeches.
I am not denying that the National Bus Company is about to try for a change in subsidy policy for rural transport services. No one is denying that. What I am saying is that in the 1968 Act there are more safeguards for rural transport than any other Government, on either side, has ever put into a Measure. For the first time since the 1930 and 1933 Acts, which are still the major Road Traffic Acts governing licensing, provision is made for the flexible licensing system that the hon. Gentleman has demanded time and again.
I respectfully suggest that at least hon. Gentlemen should do this side of the House the courtesy of reading our legislation. The 1968 Act involves a more flexible licensing system for smaller buses, which will deal adequately, I hope, with several points raised by hon. Gentlemen. As has been said, for the first time in a piece of transport legislation, a Government—from this side of the House— have made definite provision for rural subsidies. That will not be found in the 1953 or 1962 Acts. This has been done by this Government as a declaration of faith in rural transport.
It has also been suggested that the National Bus Company will run down the services in the areas surrounding big conurbations. The hon. Member for Worcester must remember all the arguments he used against the passenger transport authorities. It is these same authorities which will have the power to keep rural transport services going. In addition, we have the rather generous grants, totalling £60 million to £70 million in a full period, from the Chancellor to get rural railway services going. If all of that does not add up to a pretty generous


piece of assistance for rural transport I do not know what does. But that is not all.
For the first time, rural bus operators will qualify for capital grants, exactly the same kind of grants for which the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) was asking. Apart from that, bus operators, particularly in the rural areas, will be able to quality for an additional fuel tax rebate. Not only will rural bus operators get their capital costs reduced but they will also get their running costs reduced with a total fuel tax rebate. In addition, the National Bus Company has been relieved of some of its capital payment obligations to the Treasury.
Hon. Members opposite should read about these things. The Transport Act, 1968, was a pretty comprehensive and far-reaching piece of legislation. I suspect that many hon. Members opposite who have spoken tonight have not read it. Before they have the temerity to complain as they have done tonight, they should read it. Anybody who takes the care to look at the policy of the Opposition and the Government on rural transport will know which party has made a sounder declaration of faith in the rural areas.
On those grounds, the House should totally reject the Motion.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. John Brewis: Having listened to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), I am more alarmed than when I read the Motion. What surprises me is that there has been very little recognition from hon. Members opposite of the social need for rural bus services. There will always be a social need for rural bus services. Their existence is of even greater moment in Scotland, where distances are greater and populations sparser, than it is in England.
When railway closures have taken place considerable savings have been made by introducing express bus services. While they are not as satisfactory as train services, they accomplish a very large saving to the national Exchequer. When the Stranraer-Dumfries railway line in my constituency was closed, I was relieved to be given a firm assurance from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), who was

Minister of Transport at that time, that there would be as many express buses as there had been trains and that they would take only about ten minutes longer on a journey of two and a half hours than the trains had taken. The Labour Party showed a great deal of interest in this line, and its candidate in the 1964 election gave an express assurance that the line would be kept open. As soon as the election was over, the Labour Government broke that pledge and closed the line. Therefore, I am naturally suspicious of what they intend to do next, and I want the firmest assurance that the express buses will continue with at least the present frequency.
I would not exclude a review of the time at which they run, but I strongly resist the suggestion of the former Minister of Transport in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), that such special services should be properly regarded as part of the general public transport system. If this were accepted, the journey from Dumfries to Stranger would take at least four hours. It already takes a person wanting to visit a relative in Dumfries Hospital practically the whole day to get there and back. If the service were withdrawn considerable hardship would be caused in my area. It would make a complete mockery of the assurance given to the people of the area when the railway was closed.
I emphasise the great dissatisfaction which is felt in rural areas about ever rising fares and the lack of frequency of the services. I would guess that the cross-subsidisation of rural services by urban services is beginning to break down.
Some years ago an excellent report of a Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Kilbrandon suggested that there should be a new body equivalent to the traffic commissioners which would subsidise these services. It was a great pity that the Transport Act of 1968 adopted the Jack Report and gave the power of subsidising to the local authorities. The local authorities with the largest area of country road are usually those with the lowest rateable value, and the subsidising of country services is therefore much more difficult for them to afford. I do not see any solution to this problem


coming from the Wheatley Report, which gives larger regional groupings to the Highlands and the South-West.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I am at a loss to understand why the hon. Gentleman is bewailing the financial responsibility being a burden on the rates. Surely he knows that the local authorities to which he referred are those which will receive most in rate support grant from the central Government?

Mr. Brewis: I concede that, but, even so, it is to much for counties in the Highlands and the South-West to subsidise out of their rateable value all the services which should be subsidised. The proposal made by Lord Kilbrandon was much more satisfactory. I would prefer to see a proportion of the hydrocarbon oil duty earmarked to subsidising rural services.
Mr. David St. John Thomas, in his book "Rural Transport Problems", suggested that a comparatively small sum of £3 million to £5 million spread over the entire country would be enough to keep a reasonable service going if the distribution were left to a body such as the traffic commissioners.
Country buses are largely a problem for country women. The men are likely to be employed on the farm, in the next village, or at any rate within bicycling distance. The wife needs to shop and the daughters want a job in a shop or office in the town. We have heard much about the family car, but the possession of a family car is not enough. It may not be available when it is needed, and a high proportion of country women even now cannot drive a car.
If we want to stem depopulation, we must pay as much attention to rural transport as to rural water supplies, housing grants and agricultural subsidies and, as the Government are clearly trying to get out of their obligations to rural transport, I am glad that we shall be voting on the Motion.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I am glad to participate in the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) on his most able speech. He put his finger on one of the central

problems, the most unfortunate procedures resulting from the 1962 Transport Act.
In terms of railway closures, the procedure which this Act inflicted upon British Rail was quite fantastic, in that British Rail had to propose a closure and the public then had to fight an uphill battle against British Rail to prove the case for keeping the line open, thus creating the maximum ill-feeling between the public and British Rail and giving the impression that British Rail wished to shut down a line when the matter was still open for decision. I also agree that the remit to the T.U.C.C., being confined to hardship, was ludicrously narrow and long-winded, and frustrated large sections of the community who wished to make a much more positive case for the retention of services.
The second weakness of the Act relates to the lack of safeguard in the subsequent withdrawal of bus services. Hon. Members are right when they say that, an express bus service having been offered as an alternative to a rail service, it is possible for this bus service to drift away, to be cut down bit by bit, so that the alternative no longer remains, or no longer remains in the original form.
It is a tremendous step forward that the Government have agreed to a measure of subsidy of rural transport. I should like to consider the best use of the total resources in an area with social subsidies of this kind. I am worried that we are still not getting the balance between the different forms of service as accurate as we could for the needs of each particular area.
When it is decided whether a railway line should be closed down and a bus service supplied as an alternative, there is a great difference between the small rural villages and the commuter centres outside the major city. They are in two different categories. To take the commuter services and the provision of bus services as an alternative, there is a single formula which determines social cost. In weighing up the loss on the line and the social cost of putting a whole number of extra private cars and buses on the roads, there is a satisfactory formula in terms of total individual content, but it does not fit each area in the same way.
I would be much less hesitant in accepting an express bus service as an


alternative to a commuter train where there was a good bus company operating modern, warm, efficient buses, and on a motorway. People would then know that if they got on a bus they would arrive on time and would enjoy reasonable facilities and comfort. This makes a difference when calculated in terms of social cost. However, in parts of my constituency roads into the city are very bad. There are traffic bottlenecks, and an extra 200 or 300 cars or buses on the roads would add enormously to the congestion and the travelling time.
We are offered as an alternative an allegedly express bus service which fails to keep to the timetable. It is not getting people to work on time. All sorts of difficulties make such a bus service not strictly comparable to the rail services for which it is supposed to be a substitute. For instance, it worries many people in areas where the bus goes out to the rural village through the suburbs of the city that it may often fill up in the suburbs, leaving no room for the villagers on the outer fringes.
One then has services in which buses are inadequate, break down, and are cold and draughty. I have had voluminous correspondence with the Scottish Ministers and the Scottish omnibus companies protesting about old, broken-down, inefficient buses which are not providing an adequate service as an alternative to rail. Their reply has been that they cannot get crews for the buses, cannot get the proper maintenance carried out, and that the pressure of summer bus excursions is too great. All these matters should be taken into account by a local passenger transport authority when it is considering the proper use of social resources in subsidising a given area. These matters cannot be adequately worked out by hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench or the officials in London since they do not know the local roads and other characteristics in the areas concerned.
I was surprised to hear the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say that he expected certain of these bus services to be cross-subsidised by other bus services. This was not taken into account in deciding on the economic case for closing railway lines. If we had been told whether or not the bus services were to be subsidised, it would have been an important factor

to be taken into account. One assumes that the bus services are supposed to make a profit and that if they do not make a profit the bus service in a particular area will be allowed to decline. If that is the case, then that is the sort of matter to be considered.
I suggest that as part of the policy of Government subsidy for these areas they should consider even more integration. We should also take into account the state of the roads in deciding how much we are prepared to subsidise a railway line in such an area We should try to put road and rail together in some instances by having the bus station beside the railway station and having transferable tickets so that members of the public can take either the available restricted train service or, if it is better, the bus service.
We could do much more in our rural areas to make an intelligent use of what we have. In the case of commuter services, we should either run feeder buses to the stations or provide more parking space at stations so that commuters become accustomed to driving in, leaving their cars, and using the commuter train service to town.
Thus, I have now dealt with the problem from the point of view of an area such as my part of the country and the commuter service from a rural area into a city.
Quite a different problem is that of a small village off the main road where possibly there was once a train service which no longer exists. It is a problem of the cyclical decline spoken about by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). These are villages which are beautiful to live in, entirely rural in character, whose life has changed completely in the last 20 years. Whereas before such a village was the centre for an area into which people travelled to do their shopping and so on, it is now a place for people to live, and it is empty during the day because its inhabitants go where there is industry. The vast majority have cars. We are faced with a situation where people living in such villages have their own transport and tend to do their shopping in the local county town or the nearest major town. As a result, there tends to be a closure of the facilities in such villages, which become dormitories to the larger towns round about.
It is more disastrous for the people who are left in them. They have not the shops, the post office, the place where they can get a haircut, and so on, and we have to consider how best to meet their needs.
I have the good fortune to have a postal minibus service in my constituency, and I am grateful to the Minister for the co-operation which I received in this matter. I suggest that a great deal can be done with these minibus services if a few changes are made. At the moment the minibus service in my constituency is subsidised by the post office. It has to fit in with post office runs. That is understandable when it is run mainly by the post office. As a result, the minibus cannot offer the service that people want, because it goes slowly out to the outlying villages in the morning, delivering all the way, and comes quickly back.
What is wanted is the reverse. People in the villages want to be run to the county town in the morning and brought quickly back at night. What is necessary to make the minibus service pay and not require subsidy from the post office is the recasting of the postal delivery service to fit in with passenger needs. I appreciate that that is difficult, but I believe that a lot of people in my area would not mind getting their letters delivered later in the morning if it meant, in addition, having a local bus service in and out of the town when they wanted it. In addition, where the Government and local authorities are committed to running school bus services, it should not be impossible to run minibuses offering passenger facilities as well. In some areas it might be a little easier to run a school bus service if there were other passengers in the vehicles along with the children.
I see no reason why we should not have a more flexible policy of this kind designed to give bus services to our remoter rural villages where transport is needed. Where we have decided to provide social subsidies for commuter areas where there is a restricted or discontinued train service, we should calculate our social costs on the basis of the problems of the area, related to the area and to the demands of the people in the area.
That is why I welcome the possibility for people to contribute something in the form of subsidies to the maintenance of the transport system in their areas. In

this, we have the bones of a policy. We need to decentralise it and to decide our passenger transport requirements area by area based on a knowledge of local conditions. We need to be more flexible, taking into account the capacity of local bus services, the state of local roads, the desire of local people, and their shopping patterns. If we can do that, we can offer a service which will meet our needs at least for the next decade.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) said that we were discussing the Conservative Act of 1962. That was a Parliamentary blunder of the first order. We are not discussing anything of the kind. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) fell into the same error. He made a delightful speech and I enjoyed listening to it. But it is time that we came back to the Motion, which is that the Government, within the last six months—it is an extremely narrow Motion—have committed one particular blunder for which in particular circumstances they should be condemned. That is the Motion before us tonight.
I represent a constituency consisting of five towns and 60 villages. If it was not 9.15 in the evening I should enjoy delivering to the House my philosophy of what a complete rural bus service should be. I do not intend doing that. We are not discussing that tonight, and I am anxious to indicate where the Government have blundered, how they have blundered, and why.
Their first blunder—I do not mean this in a personal sense, but in a Parliamentary sense—is Parliamentary arrogance. The Motion would never have arisen and the debate would never have taken place had the Government allowed proper discussion of the 1968 Act. It is because Section 54 was never discussed in the House that this debate is taking place.
Like other hon. Members, I am often asked to talk to sixth formers, rotary clubs, and so on, about the way that Parliament works. Over the years all of us have done this. I have always proudly said that while we differ on many matters, nothing ever goes through by accident. We have Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage, Third Reading, and


the House of Lords. We are thorough. Everything is properly discussed. That was the speech I used to make. I am increasingly uncertain whether I can make it truthfully now. That is the charge of Parliamentary arrogance.
The second charge, which I think is well substantiated—I will try not to use harsh words—is sharp practice. This is how the matter arose. The Government took some action, as the Parliamentary Secretary conceded in his speech, which cost bus users about £1 million a year. I am not now arguing whether that action was right or wrong, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not conceal that that action was taken without consulting local authorities and without any announcement to the House. Indeed, but for a Written Question by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), which caught the sharp eye of a Dorset town clerk, I doubt whether this would have come to light. The Answer, which ran to 37 lines, was in terms of such gobbledegook that nobody understood what it meant. This is where the sharp practice comes in. If a Minister seeks to remove £1 million, however good a case he may have, he should at least say so and see that it is understood.
The third charge is muddle. I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will not take it just from me. I have here the transcript of an inquiry held by the traffic commissioners of the western traffic area in which an application was made by four bus companies, which cover inter alia the area of Dorset with which I am particularly concerned, for a substantial rise in fares. The chairman of the commissioners in giving his decision and having to decide whether the increase in fares is reasonable or unreasonable is required to have regard to all the facts. He opened his judgment, after referring to considerations of matters which appeared to have been
legislated for by Ministerial letter and answers in the House"—
we do not make the task of people who have to deal with the results of this type of legislation any easier—with these words:
We are still in the dark as to the precise position",
and being in the dark he is called upon to give a decision which will greatly affect

the amount of the fares paid by my constituents.
So is arrogance proved. So is sharp practice proved, so is muddle proved, and finally before the traffic commissioners themselves, one gets at least the likelihood, through no blame on them, of injustice proved. Those are the charges which we are discussing tonight, and those are the charges to which I at least propose to stick.
The next charge is to some extent that of callousness, and here I come to my constituents. I do not wish to say of them anything that I would not equally say of rural populations in many other parts of the country. In the Western area alone, of which Dorset forms a part, the amount of cash taken out of their pockets by this act is £129,000. That is the amount established by the chairman of the traffic commissioners who investigated this case. That is a large sum. I am not for the moment concerned with future policy. This is the immediate effect upon a rural population which has been hit hard and many times by this Government.
I could not help noticing this afternoon that in answer to a question it was said that a London docker is dissatisfied because he has been offered only £33 a week. I make no comment on that. I do not represent him. If he can get it, well and good, but the Government are paying to a docker in Portland, a man primarily employed by the Government in the dock-yard there, a sum which does not amount to £14 a week. That is the contrast between the rural dweller and the urban dweller. A couple of months ago, for the first time in the history of our yards so dissatisfied was the Portland docker that he went out on strike and asked me to address a strike meeting outside the dock gates. My sympathy was with him. Many dockers live in Weymouth, and their bus fares will be put up over everything else. A man there is required to keep a family on £14 a week, and yet have to pay additional bus fares.
I shall not dwell on the difficulties which arise in rural populations. The House is familiar with them, but I draw the attention of those who dwell in towns to the fact that we have a 4½ per cent. unemployment rate, something which not many people associate with Dorset. It is a low-wage area, and hon. Gentlemen


opposite who are familiar with wages paid in towns may find it difficult to realise that the wages paid, often by the Government, in the area that I represent ere beginning to impose hardship after hardship, and that the rural areas are rapidly growing poorer whilst cities get richer.
That is the charge against the Government. It is one to which I hope the Minister will respond. The charges against them are Parliamentary carelessness. The Bill was never properly debated. They are charged with inefficient practice. Having taken what I believe to have been an unwise decision to remove £1 million, there was no proper consultation. They are charged also with muddle, in that when the cases came before the Traffic Commissioners the Chairman was forced to take decisions on the basis of insufficient information. Finally, they are charged with callousness, because by this Measure there has been imposed on at least one rural population a greater degree of hardship than the people there ought to be called upon to suffer.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I realise how few minutes there are left, so I will confine myself to one or two important points.
It surprises me—perhaps, on second thoughts, it does not—that the Opposition have made no attempt to justify the central theme of their Motion, that the railways should pay subsidies to those bus services which replace rural train services. There will always be difficulty in running rural bus services profitably, as there is with rural railway services. It is sensible that the Government should arrange for these services to be subsidised from public funds, with half the cost borne by local authorities.
If the local authority is partly responsible, it will be more moderate in its demands. In the past, when they had no financial responsibility for bus or rail services, local authorities made many demands as long as they did not have to pay for the consequences. Now they will have to consider whether a service is worth while and the money spent is justifiable, and many of their electors will have to bear in mind, when making demands, that they will have to pay for them as ratepayers.
Most important of all, they will do something to remember the importance of rural transport when they are planning. I was a member of a rural district council, which was also a planning authority, for nine years. Every time we considered plans for houses, schools or anything else, we did not consider the accessibility to public service transport. Yet this should always be considered when planning. If we want public services to prosper, we must feed them. For instance, if we are concerned about an area's accessibility to sewers, why not consider its accessibility to transport? Schools and council houses should be built on main bus routes.
So far, this factor has been totally neglected in planning. Local authorities may take more care of this in future, when they have some responsibility for these services. Many public passenger services have failed because this point has been neglected. In parts of Wales and East Anglia, council estates have been built after a public transport service had been withdrawn. If the plans had been known beforehand, the services could have been maintained.
There will always be difficulties in running rural services, but public transport will have to be helped, partly by public funds, but most of all by planning. This new half-and-half method of financing which the Government have adopted is just the right way. The whole cost would be too much for local authorities. This is nothing new, since we are merely following the example of many European countries, where local authorities contribute to public transport services.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: This has been an interesting debate in which we have heard from the Leader of the Welsh Nationalist Party in the House of Commons, which is always pleasant, and from the Liberal Party. Somebody once said that the Liberal Party was rather like a herring in that its backbone was to the left or the right according to how one opened it.
The first part of the speech of the hon. Member who represents the Liberal Party was to the right, when he said that there should be no subsidies whatever, while the second part was to the left, when he advocated capital subsidies, subsidies for old-age pensioners and the rest. It was a typical Liberal performance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) made a number of constructive suggestions, while a cogent analysis of the parliamentary record of the Labour Party on this topic was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King).
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) accused my hon. Friends of ranting and raving at times, a matter on which he is a great expert, both as a practitioner and as one who analyses it. I remember the days when Midland Red was under free enterprise. At that time the hon. Member for Nuneaton ranted and raved throughout the Midlands about the fares being charged and the services being provided under free enterprise. I hope to hear him ranting and raving now that Midland Red is increasing its fares throughout the Midlands and is, in the view of those who use it, providing services which are not seeming to improve.
The Opposition Motion has exposed a remarkably incompetent state of affairs resulting from the policies of the Government. The Parliamentary Secretary's explanation of what has been happening was remarkable because he said that the National Bus Company would lose about £1 million in subsidies from the railways but that it would gain because it no longer had to provide £2 million to £3 million in profits, with the result that, on balance, it would be better off than it would have been under the old system.
Yet the National Bus Company is, throughout the country, asking for increased fares on the basis that its financial position has deteriorated. If the Parliamentary Secretary is correct, it should be asking for reductions in fares. "Ah," the hon. Gentleman explains, "the major part is the cost of wages. On balance, with the subsidy, it is better off." Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the National Bus Company is appearing before traffic commissioners throughout the country giving as one reason for its request for fares increases the fact that it is losing the subsidy?
The Parliamentary Secretary tried to brush this off by saying that the National Bus Company had been formed, that it had lots of subsidiaries, that in its first

year it did not know what its subsidiaries were doing and that it had not given financial targets to those subsidiaries. The subsidiaries were, therefore, applying for increased fares because they had not been instructed from the centre and, in any event, they really did not need the extra fares.
The Parliamentary Secretary revealed a remarkable state of affairs. It was peculiar, to say the least, to hear a Minister admit that a nationalised industry for which he is responsible is in such chaos that it is making representations to traffic commissioners throughout the country when those representations are absolutely untrue and unjustified.
One hon. Gentleman opposite mentioned the Rural District Councils Association and accused my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) of reading only one portion of a letter which the association had sent out. I will read more of the letter. Writing to my hon. Friend, the association said:
You already know the situation in their Western Area, where the information about subsidies for rail replacement services came out at the hearing of an application for a fares increase.
That was the only one mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary. He referred to it as a sort of mistake on the part of a subsidiary.
The association went on:
A similar application from one of the major bus operators in East Anglia, Eastern Counties, is being considered by the Traffic Commissioners for the Eastern Area today. Last week there was a joint hearing of the Traffic Commissioners for the East Midlands, Eastern and Metropolitan Areas to consider an application for an increase in fares by United Counties, when reference was made to the loss of the subsidies. Two South-Eastern and South Wales Traffic Commissioners said that the question of such subsidies has been raised with them.
All over the country the National Bus Company, for which the Minister is responsible, is asking for fare increases on the basis of losing the subsidy; yet the Parliamentary Secretary says that overall it is better off than it was. This demands an explanation. It demands that the Minister should call on the chairman of the National Bus Company to explain why the subsidiaries are making wrong applications. Representing a


subsidiary of the National Bus Company, Mr. Fay, Q.C. said:
The applications firstly resulted from wage increases and secondly from the withdrawal of £129,000 payment to the companies from British Rail to contribute to the cost of running services which had replaced their discontinued rail equivalents.
He went on to say:
The National Bus Company which acquired the companies at the beginning of the year is not prepared to re-imburse them this sum.
This is the case put before the traffic commissioners by the National Bus Company; yet the Parliamentary Secretary says that the N.B.C. should be going to the traffic commissioners and saying, "We have lost £129,000 in railway subsidies, but we have gained about £300,000 by not having to show a profit." A terrible act of non-disclosure is going on. The Opposition will have brought to the attention of the country that never again can the National Bus Company make that sort of representation.
The complacency of hon. Members opposite as to the costs of the rural bus services is quite remarkable. We have heard a great deal about the workings of the various Transport Acts. Hon. Members opposite have spoken about railway closures being the responsibility of the 1962 Conservative Government. The hon. Member for Central Ayshire (Mr. Manuel), with his considerable knowledge of this subject, knows that there have been more miles of railway closed during the lifetime of this Labour Government than there were during the lifetime of the last Conservative Government. If hon. Members opposite are to talk about humbug on this side of the House when appealing for the reopening of railway services, we should call attention to the humbug of hon. Members opposite who fought the whole policy of railway closures and who since they came to power, have closed more lines of fail-way than any Government in history. This is a simple piece of hypocrisy.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we closed 11,000 miles against the 8,000 miles recommended by Beeching.

Mr. Walker: It is all very well—

Mr. Manuel: I mean the other way round.

Mr. Walker: I recognise that the hon. Member made a mistake, one of many. It cannot be maintained by hon. Members opposite that it was the wicked Tories who brought in a policy of railway closures because the party opposite continued that policy.
The remarkable case of the Parliamentary Secretary was that all is well with rural bus services. When people living in rural areas read of the complacency with which the Parliamentary Secretary presented his case they will be shocked. He said that was is happening is reasonable. There are at present applications for increases of 25 per cent. in rural bus fares all over the country. If this is the Parliamentary Secretary's view of what is reasonable following the 1968 Act, it is in direct contradiction to all the speeches made by hon. Members opposite at the time of the passing of the Act. They tried to create an atmosphere which suggested that the rural bus services would be considerably aided and would obtain additional assistance. As he well knows, the safeguard of the bus services resulting from railway closures has been taken away by this Government—and taken away by a parliamentary procedure designed to obtain the minimum of publicity.
I again quote the words of the late Minister of State:
The additional and revised bus services are a condition of the closure being effected If, for any reason—for example, operators being unwilling or unable to provide them, or the traffic commissioners not licensing them—they are not provided, the closure cannot take place, unless or until my right hon. Friend varies the conditions. Let that be perfectly plain. The conditions are laid down and they must be satisfied according to these terms."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1965: Vol. 712, c. 871.]
It is this safeguard that the Government have taken away.
When the Labour Government came to power, a general impression was created in a number of rural constituencies that the Government were dedicated to giving more help to rural bus services. The nearest estimate which can be made is that rural bus fares have risen by between 30 per cent, and 40 per cent. since October, 1964. At present, following the 1968 Act, following all the assistance that the Government stated would go into rural bus services, there are many


proposals throughout the country to increase rural bus fares by a further 25 per cent.
So under the Labour Government rural bus fares will have the distinction—it is a rare distinction—of having risen faster than the general cost of living.
It is not only the question of the subsidies that we raise tonight. As the Minister well knows, when Labour came to power petrol was 4s. 9½d. a gallon. It is now 6s. 6d. It is true that the Government have produced legislation for this to be rebated, but it is rebated three months in arrears. The result of its being rebated three months in arrears is that the total cost on bus services of the increase in petrol, despite the rebate, is about £½ million a year.
There is then the question of the impact of the selective employment tax on rural bus services. At present the bus companies make a permanent loan to the Government of £7½ million as a result of selective employment tax. That £7½million loan has to be financed at the enormously high rate of interest imposed by the Government.
Rural bus services, as well the Minister knows, do not obtain much benefit from the investment allowances for new buses because, by their nature, rural bus services tend to use the older buses and not the newer buses. [Interruption.] Then in Scotland they are very lucky: they have all new buses in the rural areas.
I am saying that bus operators in both urban and rural areas, quite understandably, put their older stock into the rural areas rather than submit the newer stock to that use. Therefore, rural bus services are particularly hard hit by the high cost of repairs. Likewise, selective employment tax adds to the cost of insurance.
So the Government have on petrol, on selective employment tax, on the cost of repairs, and on insurance costs, added to the burden of rural transport. The Government have mismanaged—at least, the National Bus Company has mismanaged it for them, so it is said—the manner in which they considered that they would aid rural bus services. What we have

exposed tonight is an appallingly incompetent state of affairs for rural transport, and, what is much worse, a complacent Government who are not interested in the fast spiral of fares and costs for rural transport.

9.43 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Frederick Mulley): Hon. Members who have heard the whole of the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) will realise that the hon. Gentleman has relieved me of a good deal of responsibility for replying, as the hon. Gentleman put it, to the very narrow point about increased costs occasioned by the switch of the former Railway Board's subsidies. Having made this first point about the vote of censure on the Government, the hon. Gentleman went on in most eloquent but somewhat exaggerated terms to give a thousand and one other reasons why costs over the whole sector of public transport have risen, and thus he put that small sum of the subsidy into proportion.
I shall endeavour to deal with the other points which he made as I go along.
I welcome this debate—I am sorry that it has been so short—because it gives me an opportunity to state the Government's policy. In view of the short time, I thought that I should not ask for too long to reply, so I ask hon. Members who have raised detailed points to allow me to answer them in writing. To the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), who asked for an immediate reply, I say straight away that some of his interesting suggestions were considered by the Jack Committee, on certain of which it made recommendations which have been put into effect, and with others of which it found reason to disagree. I shall send him a note about the interesting points which he raised.
There are real difficulties in road passenger transport in urban as well as rural areas, and I shall not disguise from the House that these difficulties will not be easily resolved. We all know that the difficulties arise not from policy decisions but from the basic circumstances of the situation. The increase in motor cars, the spread of television, which has meant


less demand in off-peak times to go to the cinema and so on, the staff difficulties—all these were well analysed by the Committee on Rural Bus Services set up by the party opposite in 1959, under the chairmanship of Sir Daniel Jack, which reported in 1961. Most hon. Members who have spoken have accepted and discussed these basic difficulties.
With the exception of the two Front Bench spokesmen and the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King), I think that all hon. Members on both sides have tried to address themselves to the genuine problems. Fare increases are, obviously, extremely unpopular, but we ought to be a little careful in bandying percentages about. If one has to increase a 2d. fare it can be increased only to 3d., and that is a 50 per cent. increase. Equally, if one increases a 3d. fare to 4d. it is a 33⅓ per cent. increase. It is easy for hon. Gentlemen opposite to maximise and make the most they can of it. I noticed that they did not attack the London newspapers which this week put up their prices by 20 per cent.—the only way to do it with the only possible increase being 1d.
The Front Bench opposite has tried to make a lot of political capital out of very little factual evidence, financial or statutory—and how little I shall endeavour to show. Broadly, they set their record against ours, and their claim is: "Trust us, and we shall help rural bus services". Perhaps the hon. Member for Worcester is glad that he did not put it in quite those terms, because he would come very badly out of it. I did not hear from any hon. Member opposite the favourite theme of their weekend speeches about reductions in taxation. We should be interested to hear how these unspecified, unquantified subsidies are to come from a lower tax revenue.
The Opposition have rightly said that this is a narrow point, the question of the former Railways Board subsidies being withdrawn after two years. First, one should make clear that it has never been the practice to subsidies all the alternative services which are there when a railway is closed. In most cases, the alternative services are existing services.

The element of subsidy applied only to the additional services which the Minister required to be instituted.
I turn for a moment to the valuable ultimate safeguard for the rural communities established under the 1962 Act, as the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) described it when he referred to the work of his right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), the rural population's friend. His subsidies amounted in 1963 to £92,000, and in 1964 to £81,000. These figures are all in the Railways Board's reports. It is true that under the present Government by 1968, when the Transport Act changed the situation, the figure had risen to £1,012,000.

Mr. Heseltine: Does the Minister agree that that is the most conclusive proof we could want that the present Government have closed railways faster than we did?

Mr. Mulley: Not faster. We have been in power longer since the closures than the party opposite. Hon. Members opposite want to divert me from the real facts that I want to put before the House.
The 1962 Act, which was claimed to be the friend of the rural communities, followed the Jack Committee Report, of 1961, which analysed all the problems of rural transport and made many recommendations on how to cope with them, including local authority subsidies shared with central government. Although that Act came only one year after its Committee had reported, the party opposite did absolutely nothing in it to help any kind of road passenger transport, although it was a general Transport Act. [Interruption.] The sum of £81,000 was the total subsidy by the party opposite, through the medium of the railways to the whole of road passenger transport when the present Government took office. At the same time as the right hon. Member for Wallasey was paying out through the medium of the railway deficit the handsome sum of £81,000, he was taking back from bus companies between £2 million and £3 million by way of dividend, because the 1962 Act laid on the Transport Holding Company, the publicly-owned section which has since become the National Bus Company, the obligation to operate as a


commercial enterprise. Section 29 of that Act provided that it had to operate
as a company engaged in a commercial enterprise…
When we quite properly introduced the National Bus Company in the 1968 Transport Act its terms of reference included collecting for its combined revenues not less than sufficient to meet the charges properly chargable, taking one year with another. It is not required by Statute to make a surplus for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No wonder the party opposite thought that the 1962 Act was so wonderful. It was paying out £81,000 and getting back £2 million or £3 million from the rural bus services.
If the hon. Gentleman does not understand why bus fares have increased in the circumstances that have occurred throughout this century, he is beyond redemption.

Mr. Peter Walker: Mr. Peter Walker rose—

Mr. Mulley: I must get on.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about the bus fuel grants. The tax paid by bus companies today is 2s. a gallon. In 1964, when we came to office, it was 2s. 9d. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that one loses that 9d. because one gets the refund only after three months, I wonder how he gets on in the City, what he really pays by way of interest charges. In the present year in the Estimates we are providing £6 million clear, over and above any increase that there has been in the case of fuel, for the whole of the road transport industry, of which about £1¼ million goes to the National Bus Company. In addition, we are providing a new bus grant of £5¼ million, making a provision of £11¼ million, much of which goes to rural communities. Next year we are estimating a total of £14½million, against the £81,000 that the party opposite was giving in 1964, at a time when they were taking £2 million to £3 million from the bus companies.
Does anyone really believe that undertakings charged by Statute to operate as commercial enterprises were going to take a more reasonable view of cross-subsidisation and running uneconomic services than undertakings on the traditional and proper basis of the nationalised

transport industry? In addition, we provide infrastructure grants and, under Section 34 of the 1968 Act, the opportunity not having been taken in 1962—[Interruption.]—we implemented—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had a placid debate so far. There is too much noise on both sides.

Mr. Mulley: In Section 34, we implemented the main recommendations of the Jack Committee, the Tory Government, whose report it was, having neglected to do so in 1962. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) rather suggested that this had not been done and a number of other hon. Members asked about the provision. It is true that at present only a small number of local authorities have made application under Section 34, but I pay tribute to the Devon County Council here, which has been a pioneer in this and has had consultations both with the Ministry and the National Bus Company. I am only sorry that when the hon. Member for Tavistock conducts his investigations, as he calls them, he does not do it a bit nearer home, since he would then realise that people actually concerned with these problems are aware of what has been done.
If rural people were asked to choose, they would have no doubt as to their choice. [Interruption.] I know that they are intelligent enough to realise that £14½million is better than £81,000. They also know that, if the 1962 Act had been carried out further, it would have been a total disaster for the rural areas.
I do not promise any easy solution. It would be dishonest for me to do so. Yet that is the impression which the party opposite is trying to create. There are extremely difficult problems in road transport, urban as well as rural. The case hon. Members opposite have tried to put together in this Motion is nonsense, and I invite the House to treat it as such. If the Opposition have followed the debate, as I hope they have, and have learned a little about the statutory position, they will withdraw the Motion.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the main point of the debate.


He has talked of the increase in Government subsidy but has not said a word about increases in fares.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 283.

Division No. 20.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Goodhew, Victor
Monro, Hector


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gower, Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Grant, Anthony
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Astor, John
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Awdry, Daniel
Grieve, Percy
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gurden, Harold
Murton, Oscar


Balniel, Lord
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Alrey


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Batsford, Brian
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bell, Ronald
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nott, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Onslow, Cranley


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr, Capt. L P. S.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Biffen, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hastings, Stephen
Pardoe, John


Blaker, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hay, John
Percival, Ian


Body, Richard
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Peyton, John


Bossom, Sir dive
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heseltine, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Higgins, Terence L.
Pounder, Rafton


Braine, Bernard
Hiley, Joseph
Price, David (Eastleign)


Brewis, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Prior, J. M. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pym, Francis


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holland, Philip
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hordern, Peter
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bryan, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. sir Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hunt, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridsdale, Julian


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Carlisle, Mark
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Cary, Sir Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Chataway, Christopher
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Royle, Anthony


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clark, Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
St. John-stevas, Norman


Cooke, Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott, Nicholas


Cordle, John
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Scott-Hopkins, James


Corfieid, F. V.
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Costain, A. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Silvester, Frederick


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Crouch, David
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Crowder, F. P.
Lambton, Viscount
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Speed, Keith


Currie, G. B. H.
Lane, David
Stainton, Keith


Dalkeith, Earl of
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stodart, Anthony


Dance, James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dean, Paul
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'd field)
Tapsell, Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
MacArthur, Ian
Temple, John M.


Drayson, G. B.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Tilney, John


Eden, Sir John
McMaster, Stanley
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Errington, Sir Eric
Maddan, Martin
Vickers, Dame Joan


Farr, John
Maginnis, John E.
Waddington, David


Fisher, Nigel
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marten, Neil
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Fortescue, Tim
Maude, Angus
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Foster, Sir John
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Wall, Patrick


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mawby, Ray
Walters, Dennis


Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Weatherill, Bernard


Glyn, Sir Richard
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Miscampbell, Norman
Wiggin, A. W.


Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)




Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Worsley, Marcus
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Wright, Esmond
Mr. Jasper More and


Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wylie, N. R.
Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Woodnutt, Mark






NOES


Abse, Leo
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lipton, Marcus


Albu, Austen
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric(Islington, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth


Allen, Scholefield
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Loughlin, Charles


Anderson, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Luard, Evan


Armstrong, Ernest
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Ashley, Jack
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Ford, Ben
McCann, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Forrester, John
MacColl, James


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fowler, Gerry
MacDermot, Niall


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Macdonald, A. H.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Freeson, Reginald
McElhone, Frank


Barnes, Michael
Gardner, Tony
McGuire, Michael


Barnett, Joel
Garrett, W. E.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Beaney, Alan
Ginsburg, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Golding, John
Mackie, John


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mackintosh, John P.


Bidwell, Sydney
Cray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Maclennan, Robert


Binns, John
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bishop, E. S.
Gregory, Arnold
MacPherson, Malcolm


Blackburn, F.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Booth, Albert
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Manuel, Archie


Boston, Terence
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mapp, Charles


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marks, Kenneth


Boyden, James
Hamling, William
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bradley, Tom
Hannan, William
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Harper, Joseph
Mayhew, Christopher


Brooks, Edwin
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Haseldine, Norman
Mendelson, John


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hazell, Bert
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Millan, Bruce


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Henig, Stanley
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Buchan, Norman
Hilton, W. S.
Mitchell, R. c. (S'th'pton, Test)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hobden, Dennis
Molloy, William


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hooley, Frank
Moonman, Eric


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Horner, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Carmichael, Neil
Howarth. Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moyle, Roland


Chapman, Donald
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Coe, Denis
Huckfield, Leslie
Murray, Albert


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Neal, Harold


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Newens, Stan


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Norwood, Christopher


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon


Crawshaw, Richard
Hynd, John
Ogden, Eric


Cronin, John
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
O'Halloran, Michael


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
O'Malley, Brian


Dalyell, Tarn
Janner, Sir Barnett
Oram, Albert E.


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orbach, Maurice


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Orme, Stanley


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Delargy, Hugh
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Padley, Walter


Dell, Edmund
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Paget, R. T.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Palmer, Arthur


Dickens, James
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dobson, Ray
Judd, Frank
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Doig, Peter
Kelley, Richard
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Pentland, Norman


Eadie, Alex
Latham, Arthur
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Edelman, Maurice
Lawson, George
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Leadbitter, Ted
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Price, William (Rugby)


English, Michael
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Probert, Arthur


Ensor, David
Lee, John (Reading)
Randall, Harry


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, yardley)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rankin, John


Faulds, Andrew
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Rees, Merlyn


Fernyhough, E,
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Richard, Ivor


Finch, Harold
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)







Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Small, William
Weitzman, David


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie
Wellbeloved, James


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kennet (St. P'c'as)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
White, Mrs. Eirene


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Whitlock, William


Roebuck, Roy
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wilkins, W. A.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Swain, Thomas
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Rose, Paul
Taverne, Dick
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Rowlands, E.
Thornton, Ernest
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Ryan, John
Tinn, James
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Tomney, Prank
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Sheldon, Robert
Tuck, Raphael
Winnick, David


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Urwin, T. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Varley, Eric G.
Woof, Robert


Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N. E.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)



Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptord)
Walden, Brian (AH Saints)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Silverman, Julius
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. Neil McBride and


Sheffington, Arthur
Wallace, George
Mr. James Hamilton.


Slater, Joseph
Watkins, David (Consett)

A650, BRADFORD-WAKEFIELD (ACCIDENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

10.12 p.m.

Sir Alfred Broughton: I wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity of raising a matter of considerable importance to many of my constituents and to others who use a road passing through my constituency. The road to which I refer is the main Bradford-Wakefield road, otherwise known as the A650, and the part of it to which I wish to draw particular attention is a stretch of approximately three miles long between the crossroads at Bruntcliffe on the Bradford side and Tingley Mill on the Wakefield side. I do so because of the alarming number of accidents on this section of the road.
For many years this has been a busy road carrying traffic between the cities of Bradford and Wakefield, but, in addition to this local inter-city traffic, the road has also carried vehicles travelling to and from places beyond Wakefield, particularly Doncaster, and from there on to the Great North Road. As the number of motor vehicles has increased, so has the traffic passing along this road. From time to time there have been accidents, some fatal.
Recently the M1 was extended further north to Leeds, and this passes the A650 in my constituency where there is access to the new motorway. With the opening of the M1 there was a sudden great increase in the volume of traffic using the A650, and the number of accidents has reached terrifying figures and includes tragic fatal accidents.
The part of the road to which I draw attention is wide, has a good surface and runs through a built-up area. Frequently the fast-moving overtaking, heavy and numerous vehicles are an alarming sight. Crossing the road on foot can be at best a frightening experience and at worst fatal.
Grave concern has been felt for some time by many of my constituents, particularly mothers of young children. In the summer of this year there were some shocking accidents in which children were

killed, and so great was public concern and indignation that in August more than a thousand constituents signed a petition which was handed to me.
I passed on the information to the Minister of Transport, and at the same time I explained as best I could the problems. I should like to thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his sympathetic and prompt reply to my request for further safety measures. I know that he instructed specialists to make a close study of the black accident history of the road and to make recommendations for lessening the danger. I am aware that a study of this nature takes time, and I am hopeful that my hon. Friend will now be in a position to give some idea of the safety measures that he intends to introduce. I am sure he understands the urgency of the matter.
I should like to acquaint my hon. Friend with the opinions of local people. I myself know the road well and use it every week as I travel about my constituency. I have had numerous discussions with constituents, including, I am sad to say, parents of some of the children who have been killed. We think that an important factor contributing to the large number of accidents is the speed at which vehicles travel. There is a 40 miles-an-hour speed limit, and local opinion is that this should be reduced to 30 m.p.h.
Another suggestion is that islands should be placed in the middle of the road at its widest parts to provide refuge for people crossing and to cut down the amount of overtaking. More pedestrian crossings are needed, and it is important that parking be prohibited near pedestrian crossings. Traffic lights have been suggested at some of the crossroads, and notices giving warning to drivers of danger have been mentioned.
At present the nearby Yorkshire-Lancashire motorway is under construction. I had thought that when it was completed traffic would use it to travel to the M1 motorway. But I am informed that the Yorkshire-Lancashire motorway will join the M1 at Lofthouse and that seven miles will be added to the journey for those who do not use the A650. As time is of more importance than distance to most drivers, I suggest that the only way to keep the A650 free from a great amount


of M1 traffic will be to ensure that travel along the A650 is slow.
The accident rate on the road about which I speak is appalling. I have coined for it the name "Tragedy Road". This month there have been more accidents, and in one of them a little girl was seriously injured. So great was public indignation when this tragedy occurred that mothers protested by going on the road and stopping the traffic at peak times. So local feeling is one of serious concern. The matter is urgent, and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will now announce safety measures that will alleviate the present great anxiety.

10.20 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I very much appreciate the concern for road safety that my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Sir A. Broughton) has shown. Saving life and limb on the roads is an urgent and inescapable social problem in which we are all involved. Some of the action which can be taken must come from the Government. But there is much which can be and needs to be done by spirited local action. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the attention that he has devoted to this problem of reducing accidents on the A650 in his constituency.
The A650 is a busy route which carries much heavy commercial and industrial traffic between Bradford and Wakefield. It also carries considerable local traffic. Since the opening of the M61 in October, 1968, it has attracted extra traffic between Bradford and the M1. From time to time congestion has been caused by works in connection with the motorways.
The route is either urban or semi-urban. Between Gildersome Crossroads and Tingley Mills it is almost entirely built-up and is particularly liable to congestion because of its topography and the number of busy roads which join it. The whole of the A650 route gives us the traffic and safety problems which are associated with urban trunk roads, but the main difficulties are on the section through Morley. This stretch has two hills whose crests limit the drivers' line of sight, two major crossroads, and two staggered junctions. Because of the complex appearance of the accidents, I had

our area road safety unit at Dewsbury make a study in depth of traffic and accidents on this length of road. It reported to the divisional road engineer a fortnight ago.
I think this is the first time this House has debated a road safety unit's work in any detail. So perhaps I should explain that when it undertakes such studies a road safety unit examines the facts of all the accidents which have occurred over several years. In this case it took 1966, 1967 and 1968. In this way it is able to establish a complete picture of the accident pattern on the road; it notes exactly where each accident happened and, whenever the available evidence permits, how and why it happened. With such an analysis of the accidents and from observation of the conditions on the road, the unit is able to identify any features or conditions which have contributed to the accidents and to suggest possible measures to reduce the accidents.
From January, 1966, to December, 1968, there were 77 personal injury accidents on the 2½ miles of A650 between Gildersome Crossroads and Tingley Mills. That gives an accident rate of 3·2 per million vehicles. It is just about average for a trunk road passing through a built-up area.
When I speak of average statistics, I appreciate that they are no consolation to my hon. Friend nor to his constituents who have had loved ones included in the accident statistics in the shape of fatalities or injuries. I deeply sympathise with all concerned, especially the parents of the little girl who lost her life here so recently.
The unit's very detailed findings can be summarised by saying that there is a consistent pattern of overtaking accidents. This is not just cars or vans overtaking lorries. There were also instances of unladen lorries passing laden lorries. This overtaking may probably be associated with the delays caused by the motorway construction work. It creates hazards at certain points; for example, at bends and crests in the road. Radar checks showed the speeds of numbers of vehicles to be excessive, and at some points heavy goods vehicles generally were found to be travelling rather faster than most private cars. Skid tests


were taken, but the road surface appeared to need attention at only one site.
The obvious remedy may seem to be, as my hon. Friend has suggested, to reduce the speed limit from 40 to 30 m.p.h. I hate to disappoint him, but this almost certainly would not be the right solution. Experience has shown that, in such cases, a 30 m.p.h. restriction is almost always ignored, and the police are faced with an impossible enforcement task. There is also some indication that unrealistic speed limits increase overtaking and, consequently, the number of accidents.
Instead, the report recommends the general refurbishing of the road markings and much more use of hazard lines in the middle of the road and of double white lines to regulate overtaking. We intend to put in hand immediately a comprehensive scheme of traffic channelling along the whole length of the section. In addition, to assist traffic flow and increase pedestrian safety, waiting restrictions along the whole length will be adjusted to suit conditions, allowing limited waiting as circumstances demand, but with additional restrictions on loading and unloading during peak traffic periods.
The road safety unit found a number of definite accident clusters. The worst were at Gildersome Crossroads, Bruntcliffe Crossroads, the Scotchman Lane/Fountain Street junction of the B6123 with the A650, and the junction of the B6127 Bridge Street and the A602 Rein Road with the A650. No recommendations are made for special measures at the first two junctions. Gildersome Crossroads is currently affected by extensive motorway works which make it necessary to control the traffic according to the state of progress of the works. At Bruntcliffe Crossroads traffic signals have recently been installed and can be expected to improve safety there. The situation reflected in the accidents of the last three years therefore no longer exists. At the staggered junction at Scotchman Lane/Fountain Street there is both an accident and a capacity problem. Vehicles on the A650 are squeezed by the pedestrian refuges Those crossing from one arm of the B6123 to the other are often halted on the A650. The junction with Bridge Street and Rein Road is also a major source of difficulty because of the consistent flow of cross-stream traffic.
In deciding what should be done on this section of road, and particularly at these two latter junctions, we must remember that the completion of the M62 in this area towards the end of next year will undoubtedly attract a great deal of the traffic at present using the A650. The whole of this route will be effectively by-passed by the Gildersome-Lofthouse section of the M62. This new road, when used with the section of M1 between Lofthouse and Carr Gate, will provide a much more attractive route between Bradford and Wakefield. I am sure that this will help a great deal.
My hon. Friend has suggested that, as the alternative M62 route via Lofthouse will be somewhat longer than the A650 route, the M62 route will prove attractive only if appropriate restrictions are placed on the A650. The M62 route will, however, enable motorists to complete the journey in a much shorter time, and experience has shown that drivers value savings in time even although they may travel a little further.
The area road safety unit's report indicates that, if things stay as they are, automatic traffic signals might be an appropriate solution at the junction of Scotchman Lane/Fountain Street. At the Bridge Street/Rein Road junction either signals or a scheme for road markings to channel traffic according to destination might help. But here I must make it clear that we doubt if we would be justified in providing automatic traffic signals at present. It would take seven months to have them installed, and they would only be in use for a few months before M62 is open. Once it is open we expect the traffic pattern to change, and it could well turn out that the signals were no longer appropriate. If so, we would have wasted the taxpayer's money.
Money for roads is not unlimited, and there are many other places where expenditure is also urgently required. No doubt every hon. Member has his own candidates. We must, therefore, ensure that proper priorities are strictly observed in the allocation of available funds. If, however, the erection of the signals still proves to be justified after the opening of the M62, the work will then be put in hand.
I should like now to mention briefly the main measures which we propose to


put in hand immediately, reading from east to west along the road.
At the Bridge Street/Rein Road junction a system of ghost islands—that is, painted white diagonal stripes—will be marked on the carriageway to provide a place for vehicles to stand whilst waiting to finish a left or right hand turn off the A650. There will be more lighting at the junction and the pedestrian crossing at Bridge Street. An elongated waiting bay will be built alongside the carriageway between Rein Road and Holmfirth Avenue where vehicles can stand after the waiting restrictions have come into effect. The carriageway from this junction to High Street junction will be marked to provide two 12 ft. traffic lanes in each direction and ghost islands will also be provided at the High Street junction. Between High Street and Fountain Street, a centre warning line is to be laid leading to further ghost islands on Fountain Street, that is the B6123. Markings will be provided on the staggered junction with the B6123 to restrict overtaking and assist crossing traffic.
Continuing westwards from Scotchman Lane, double solid white lines will be laid to the far side of the crest of the hill near Lewisham Street to provide two lanes for westbound traffic and one lane for eastbound traffic. This will prevent overtaking where there is limited visibility on this stretch. From here to the existing traffic signals at the junction with Howden Clough Road the carriageway will be marked with lanes to encourage good lane discipline. From this point to the end of the section no serious problem exists.
My hon. Friend will I think agree that these measures are in part what he has proposed—and I think that my hon. Friend deserves credit for the way in which he has pursued this matter on behalf of his constituents—and I assure him that where they differ they will, we believe, more effectively achieve his aims. He suggested the construction of islands in the wide sections of the road to help pedestrians to cross and to cut down overtaking. We consider that the measures proposed as a result of the Road Safety Unit's report will effectively reduce overtaking without reducing the effective width of the carriageway, as would be the case if islands were to be erected.
My hon. Friend also asked for more zebra crossings. On this I should point out that the road is primarily a main through route and we have found by experience that if there are too many zebra crossings on such roads the delays and resulting frustration suffered by drivers can lead to increased danger to pedestrians. My hon. Friend will recall that vehicles are already being delayed by the road works and that this appears to be one of the main causes of the prevailing accident pattern. So we do not think, as things stand, that the number of existing pedestrian crossings should be increased. But because the traffic pattern is expected to change soon we shall be keeping a close eye on this stretch of road.
I am glad to have been able to accept my hon. Friend's proposal for waiting restrictions to provide a clear view of existing crossings There are statutory procedures to go through, so changes cannot come into effect immediately. But we will get on with the necessary work with all possible speed.
When the Road Safety Units have reported on schemes like this and the suggested remedies have been implemented, they then keep an eye on things. We expect periodic before and after studies. Units have already achieved important reductions in accidents and casualties and I hope that this scheme will be chalked up among the successes. The Road Safety Unit will keep an eye on this stretch of road after we have implemented the measures that I have outlined tonight, and if further measures are needed we shall not hestitate to take them.

10.34 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: I do not know the road in question, but the Minister said that it would not be good policy to reduce the speed limit from 40 to 30 because the lower limit would not be kept. I agree about that, but it is my experience that if there is a speed limit most of the traffic goes at about 10 miles an hour faster than the limit, so it probably goes at 50. If the speed limit were reduced to 30 the speed of traffic might be cut down to 40, and thus make for greater safety. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would look at that, not only from the point of view of this case, but for speed limits in general. I think that that might help.

Mr. Bob Brown: Mr. Bob Brown rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak. He may speak again only by leave of the House.

Mr. Brown: By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. To reduce the speed limit from 40 to 30 miles an hour would make the limit completely unrealistic. Our

experience is that motorists will have no regard for unrealistic speed limits. This is why the previous Minister issued the Green Paper on speed limits for discussion, and towards the end of the year we shall be looking again at speed limits.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Eleven o'clock.